Characterization of Portland Cement Concrete … of Portland Cement Concrete Coefficient of Thermal...

115
i Glenn Department of Civil Engineering Lowry Hall Clemson, SC 29634 (864) 656 – 3000 Characterization of Portland Cement Concrete Coefficient of Thermal Expansion in South Carolina Report No: FHWA-SC-17-03 T. H. Dellinger A. Poursaee Submitted to the South Carolina Department of Transportation This research was sponsored by the South Carolina Department of Transportation. The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in this report are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the SCDOT. This report does not comprise a standard, specification or regulation.

Transcript of Characterization of Portland Cement Concrete … of Portland Cement Concrete Coefficient of Thermal...

i

Glenn Department of Civil Engineering

Lowry Hall

Clemson, SC 29634

(864) 656 – 3000

Characterization of Portland Cement Concrete Coefficient

of Thermal Expansion in South Carolina

Report No: FHWA-SC-17-03

T. H. Dellinger

A. Poursaee

Submitted to the South Carolina Department

of Transportation

This research was sponsored by the South

Carolina Department of Transportation. The

opinions, findings and conclusions expressed in

this report are those of the author(s) and not

necessarily those of the SCDOT. This report does

not comprise a standard, specification or

regulation.

ii

1. Report No. FHWA-SC-17-03

2. Government Accession No.

3. Recipient’s Catalog No.

4. Title and Subtitle Characterization of Portland Cement Concrete Coefficient of Thermal Expansion in South Carolina

5. Report Date October 31, 2016 6. Performing Organization Code

7. Author(s) Trent H. Dellinger Amir Poursee

8. Performing Organization Report No.

9. Performing Organization Name and Address Glenn Department of Civil Engineering Clemson University Clemson, SC, 29631-0911

10. Work Unit No. 11. Contract or Grant No. SPR 722

12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address South Carolina Department of Transportation P.O. Box 191 Columbia, South Carolina 29202

13. Type of Report and Period Covered Draft of Final Report, 2015-2016 14. Sponsoring Agency Code

15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) sough to regionally calibrate specific input parameters used by the Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design (MEPDG) software. These properties include the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), compressive strength, and unit weight of typical SC concrete mixtures. Additionally, splitting tensile strength was included in the experimental program. Laboratory produced mixtures were tested to identify the effective CTE value of the cement paste, sand, and coarse aggregate compotes typically used in SC concrete pavements. A 25 percent cement replacement of type F fly ash and a single source of natural sand was used in the mortar component of the concrete mixtures. A total three coarse aggregate sources were used in the form of no. 57 crushed stone product or a 75:25 blend of no. 57 and no. 789 crushed stone. The CTE values of the individual phases (i.e. cement paste, sand and coarse aggregates), and concrete mixtures were measured. The resulting CTE of paste and sand was 7.3 and 5.9×10-6 in./in./°F, respectively. The CTE of three coarse aggregates ranged from 2.96 to 3.83×to-6 in./in./°F. The range of average CTE values of the concrete was 4.82 to 5.32×10-6 in./in./°F. The magnitude of the CTE values were shown not to be directly related to the compressive strength. Field cored specimens were also taken from a section of SC – 80 in Spartanburg county, SC, and analyzed. Three pavement slabs were arbitrarily selected along a 3.5-mi. pavement section. The targeted slabs were of the outside travel lane, with cores taken between the wheel paths at the leading end, middle, and trailing ends of each slab. There was not significant difference between the average CTE values of pavement slabs. The effective CTE of SC - 80 concrete pavement was determined to be 5.05×10-6 in./in./°F. The compressive strength and unit weight properties of the SC – 80 specimens suggested that the laboratory produced concrete mixtures from the first part of this study were representative of the concrete pavements in South Carolina. 17. Key Words Coefficient of Thermal Expansion, CTE, MEPDG

18. Distribution Statement No restrictions. This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, VA 22161

19. Security Classif. (of this report) Unclassified

20. Security Classif. (of this page) Unclassified

21. No. of Pages

22. Price

Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-69)

iii

Disclaimer The contents of this report reflect the views of the authors who are responsible for the facts

and the accuracy of the data presented within. The contents do not necessarily reflect the official

views or policies of the South Carolina Department of Transportation and this report does not

constitute a standard, specification, or regulation.

iv

Acknowledgments This project was funded by the South Carolina Department of Transportation and the

Federal Highway Administration. Their support is greatly appreciated. The authors would like to

acknowledge the assistance and feedback provided by personnel at the Office of Materials and

Research of the South Carolina Department of Transportation.

v

Executive Summary With FHWA support, AASHTO recently officially adopted a new "mechanistic-empirical"

process for designing pavements in which nationally calibrated models are used to simulate and

predict pavement behavior that are best-fit approximations based on observations from across the

US and Canada. Unfortunately, the predicted pavement outcomes using national models may not

be accurate for specific locations. For this reason, virtually all states that use AASHTO pavement

design methods are most strongly encouraged to perform a calibration of the new pavement models

to local conditions. Because the new process is a complete break from the old procedure, the

design inputs are totally different and frequently based on properties that the Department has not

previously measured. While some inputs can be reasonably estimated, it is important to actually

measure key properties that have been found to have the greatest impact on design predictions to

ensure accurate pavement designs.

The South Carolina Department of Transportation (SCDOT) has desired to regionally

calibrate specific input parameter used by the Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design (MEPDG)

software. These properties include the coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE), compressive

strength, and unit weight of typical SC concrete mixtures. Additionally, splitting tensile strength

was included in the experimental program.

This project determined the

CTE of the most common pavement

mixtures throughout the state of

South Carolina using AASHTO

T336-11 method. The data generated

in this project provided a

comprehensive overview of the CTE

of concrete mixtures in South

Carolina for direct implementation in

designing PCC pavement and for the

specification and testing of PCC

materials. Laboratory produced mixtures were tested to identify the effective CTE value of the

Images of slump measurements of laboratory mixtures

vi

cement paste, sand, and coarse aggregate compotes typically used in SC concrete pavements. A

25 percent cement replacement of type F fly ash and a single source of natural sand was used in

the mortar component of the concrete mixtures. A total three coarse aggregate sources were used

in the form of no. 57 crushed stone product or a 75:25 blend of no. 57 and no. 789 crushed stone.

The CTE values of the individual phases (i.e. cement paste, sand and coarse aggregates), and

concrete mixtures were measured. The resulting CTE of paste and sand was 7.3 and 5.9×10-6

in./in./°F, respectively. The CTE of three coarse aggregates ranged from 2.96 to 3.83×10-6

in./in./°F. The range of average CTE values of the concrete was 4.82 to 5.32×10-6 in./in./°F. Results

indicated that the CTE values were not directly related to the compressive strength on the concrete.

The collected data were also used to calculate CTE values using the Tex-428-A method. Results

from the Tex-428-A method in all but one data set, showed lower CTE values compared to the

AASHTO T336-11 method. The maximum difference in CTE values between these test methods

was 0.134×10-6 in./in./°F.

Field cored specimens were also taken

from a section of SC – 80 in Spartanburg county,

SC and analyzed. Three pavement slabs were

arbitrary selected along a 3.5-mile pavement

section. The targeted slabs were of the outside

travel lane, with cores taken between the wheel

paths at the leading end, middle, and trailing

ends of each slab. Results showed no significant

differences between the average CTE values of

pavement slabs. The effective CTE of SC - 80

concrete pavement was determined to be

5.05×10-6 in./in./°F. The compressive strength

and unit weight properties of the SC – 80

specimens suggested that the laboratory

produced concrete mixtures from the first part of

this study were representative of the concrete

pavements in South Carolina.

Leading Trailing Middle

1

2

3

Map of sampling locations along SC 80 and Example of sampling locations within a slab

vii

Table of Contents Disclaimer .................................................................................................................................................... iii

Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................................................ iv

Executive Summary ...................................................................................................................................... v

Table of Contents ........................................................................................................................................ vii

List of Figures ............................................................................................................................................... x

List of Tables .............................................................................................................................................. xii

Chapter 1: ...................................................................................................................................................... 1

Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 1

1.1. Problem Statement ............................................................................................................... 1

1.2. Project Objectives ................................................................................................................ 2

Part 1: Evaluation of CTE of SC concrete aggregates ............................................................ 2

Part 2: Evaluation of CTE of in-field PCC pavement, SC-80. ............................................... 2

Chapter 2: ...................................................................................................................................................... 3

Literature Review .......................................................................................................................................... 3

Establishing Standard Test Method for CTE Testing ............................................................... 11

Chapter 3: .................................................................................................................................................... 13

Materials and Experimental Procedures ..................................................................................................... 13

Materials ................................................................................................................................... 13

Laboratory Mixture Proportions (Part A) ................................................................................. 15

Additional Aggregate Specimens ......................................................................................... 17

Field Cored Specimens (Part B) ............................................................................................... 18

Relevant Testing Standards and Methods ................................................................................. 19

Workability / Slump: ASTM C143 Standard test method for slump of hydraulic-cement

concrete ................................................................................................................................. 19

Unit Weight (Fresh): ASTM C Standard test method for density (unit weight), yield, and air

content (Gravimetric) of concrete ......................................................................................... 19

viii

Percent Air Content: ASTM C231 Standard test method for air content of freshly mixed

concrete by the pressure method ........................................................................................... 19

Compressive Strength: ASTM C39 Standard test method for compressive strength of

cylindrical concrete specimens ............................................................................................. 20

Splitting Tensile Strength: ASTM C496 Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of

cylindrical Concrete Specimens ............................................................................................ 20

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion: AASHTO T336 Standard method of test for coefficient

of thermal expansion of hydraulic cement concrete ............................................................. 20

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion: Application of Tex-428-A method of calculating the

coefficient of thermal expansion using linear regression equations ..................................... 22

Statistical analysis of laboratory specimens ......................................................................... 22

Chapter 4: .................................................................................................................................................... 23

Results and Discussions .............................................................................................................................. 23

Properties of Laboratory Mixtures (Part A) .............................................................................. 23

Mixture Proportions .............................................................................................................. 23

Fresh Concrete Properties ..................................................................................................... 24

Compressive strength results ................................................................................................ 26

Splitting tensile strength results ............................................................................................ 29

Density and Air Content ....................................................................................................... 31

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Results ........................................................................... 33

Comparing calculated CTE with tested CTE of solid aggregate cores ................................. 38

Properties of Field Cored Concrete (Part B) ............................................................................. 41

Results of MEPDG analysis ..................................................................................................... 44

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Results Using Tex-428-A Method .................................... 45

Statistical Analysis of Results (Part A) ..................................................................................... 46

Statistical Analysis of Splitting Tensile Strength (Part A) ................................................... 48

Statistical Analysis of Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (Part A) ...................................... 50

Chapter 5: .................................................................................................................................................... 53

Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 53

Conclusions of Part A ........................................................................................................... 53

ix

Conclusions of Part B ........................................................................................................... 53

References ................................................................................................................................................... 54

Appendix ....................................................................................................................................................... 1

x

List of Figures

Figure 1: Benefit of blending low-CTE coarse aggregate with high-CTE coarse aggregate to reduce

the CTE of concrete (Siddiqui and Fowler, 2015) .................................................................. 6

Figure 2: Variation of CTE of results from three studies complied to show correlation of CTE of

concrete at different saturation levels (Emanuel and Hulsey, 1977). ..................................... 7

Figure 3: Images of aggregates; (a) Cayce 57, (b) Cayce 789, (c) Blacksburg 57, (d) Blacksburg

789, (e) Jefferson 57, and (f) Jefferson 789. ......................................................................... 14

Figure 4: Temperature controlled and circulating submersion curing bath used to cure all

laboratory mixtures. .............................................................................................................. 16

Figure 5: Example of solid aggregate cores take from Cayce, SC (left) and Blacksburg, SC (right).

............................................................................................................................................... 17

Figure 6: Map of sampling locations along SC 80. ...................................................................... 18

Figure 7: Example of sampling locations within a slab. ............................................................... 19

Figure 8: Pine CTE test equipment. .............................................................................................. 21

Figure 9: Stainless steel CTE frame with titanium calibration standard. ..................................... 21

Figure 10: Images of slump measurements of laboratory mixtures; (a) MX1, (b) MX2, (c) MX3,

(d) MX4, (e) MX5B, (f) MX6 (Part A). ............................................................................... 25

Figure 11: Compressive strength results of early-day (28-day) and later-age (90-day) of the

laboratory specimen sets (Part A). ........................................................................................ 27

Figure 12: Projections of compressive strength for level-2 MEPDG inputs (Part A). ................. 28

Figure 13: Splitting tensile strength results of early-age (28-day) and later-age (90-day)

submerged-cured specimen sets (Part A). ............................................................................. 30

Figure 14: Comparison of early-age (28-day) and later-age (90-day) measured density values of

laboratory produced specimen sets (Part A). ........................................................................ 33

Figure 15: Comparison of early-age (28-day) and later-age (90-day) measured CTE values of

laboratory produced specimen sets (Part A). ........................................................................ 35

Figure 16: Examination of grain direction uniformity within solid aggregate cores, (a) Cayce cores

and (b) Blacksburg cores shown in bottom row. .................................................................. 40

Figure 17: CTE results of each cored specimen taken along SC-80 (Part B). .............................. 42

Figure 18: Compressive strength results of cored specimens taken along SC-80 (Part B). ......... 42

xi

Figure 19: Density (unit weight) results of cored specimens taken along SC-80 (Part B). .......... 43

Figure 20: Average CTE results of each slab taken along SC-80 (Part B). .................................. 43

xii

List of Tables Table 1: MEPDG default design inputs (Guclu et al., 2009) ........................................................ 10

Table 2: Part 1 material information ............................................................................................. 13

Table 3: Mix designs of laboratory test mixtures. ........................................................................ 15

Table 4: Admixtures dosages used in laboratory mixtures MX1 thru MX6 (Part A). .................. 15

Table 5: Percentages of solid concrete constituents in laboratory mixtures by weight (Part A) .. 23

Table 6: Percentages of solid concrete constituents in laboratory mixtures by volume, excluding

air content (Part A). ............................................................................................................... 24

Table 7: Properties of fresh concrete mixtures (Part A). .............................................................. 24

Table 8: Maximum theoretical density of laboratory mixtures (Part A). ..................................... 25

Table 9: Summary of 28-day and 90-day compressive strength results (Part A). ........................ 26

Table 10: Compressive strength results of the laboratory specimen sets tested at various later ages

(Part A).................................................................................................................................. 28

Table 11: Recommended level-2 MEPDG input values for compressive strength (Part A). ....... 28

Table 12: Summary of 28-day and 90-day splitting tensile strength results (Part A). .................. 30

Table 13: Summary density results of 28-day and 90-day CTE specimen sets (Part A). ............. 31

Table 14: Average air content of hardened CTE specimens (Part A). .......................................... 31

Table 15: Summary of average 28-day and 90-day CTE results (Part A). ................................... 34

Table 16: Summary of average CTE results of combined 28 and 90-day results (Part A). .......... 36

Table 17: Summary of CTE values of concrete components using the “Rule-of-Mixtures” (Part A).

............................................................................................................................................... 38

Table 18: Summary of CTE results of Cayce and Blacksburg solid aggregate cored specimens with

average calculated CTE of aggregate in concrete specimens. .............................................. 39

Table 19: Summary of results of field cored specimens taken from SC-80 (Part B). .................. 41

Table 20: Summary of average 28-day and 90-day CTE results (Part A). ................................... 45

Table 21: Statistical analysis of 28-day compressive strength results (Part A). ........................... 46

Table 22: Statistical analysis of 90-day compressive strength results (Part A). ........................... 47

Table 23: Statistical analysis of 28-day splitting tensile strength results (Part A). ...................... 48

Table 24: Statistical analysis of 90-day splitting tensile strength results (Part A). ...................... 49

Table 25: Statistical analysis of 28-day CTE results using AASHTO – T336 test method (Part A).

............................................................................................................................................... 50

xiii

Table 26: Statistical analysis of 90-day CTE results using AASHTO – T336 test method (Part A).

............................................................................................................................................... 51

Table 27: Statistical analysis of 28-day versus 90-day CTE results (Part A). .............................. 52

Table A - 1: Properties of compressive strength of mixtures MX-1-28 and MX-1-90 ........... A – 2

Table A - 2: Properties of compressive strength of mixtures MX-2-28 and MX-2-90. .......... A – 3

Table A - 3: Properties of compressive strength of mixtures MX-3-28 and MX-3-90. .......... A – 4

Table A - 4: Properties of compressive strength of mixtures MX-4-28 and MX-4-90. .......... A – 5

Table A - 5: Properties of compressive strength of mixtures MX-5B-28 and MX-5B-90. ..... A – 6

Table A - 6: Properties of compressive strength of mixtures MX-6-28 and MX-6-90. .......... A – 7

Table A - 7: Properties of compressive strength of CTE specimens of MX-1-28. .................. A – 8

Table A - 8: Properties of compressive strength of CTE specimens of MX-2-28. .................. A – 9

Table A - 9: Properties of compressive strength of CTE specimens of MX-3-28. ................ A – 10

Table A - 10: Properties of compressive strength of CTE specimens of MX-4-28. .............. A – 11

Table A - 11: Properties of compressive strength of CTE specimens of MX-5B-28. ........... A – 12

Table A - 12: Properties of compressive strength of CTE specimens of MX-6-28. .............. A – 13

Table A - 13: Properties of splitting tensile strength specimen sets MX-1-28 and MX-1-90. A –14

Table A - 14: Properties of splitting tensile strength specimen sets MX-2-28 and MX-2-90. A –15

Table A - 15: Properties of splitting tensile strength specimen sets MX-3-28 and MX-3-90. A –16

Table A - 16: Properties of splitting tensile strength specimen sets MX-4-28 and MX-4-90. A –17

Table A - 17: Properties of splitting tensile strength specimen sets MX-5B-28 and MX-5B-90. . A

– 18

Table A - 18: Properties of splitting tensile strength specimen sets MX-6-28 and MX-6-90. A –19

Table A - 19: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-1-28. ..................................................... A – 20

Table A - 20: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-1-90. ..................................................... A – 21

Table A - 21: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-2-28. ..................................................... A – 22

Table A - 22: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-2-90. ..................................................... A – 23

Table A - 23: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-3-28. ..................................................... A – 24

Table A - 24: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-3-90. ..................................................... A – 25

Table A - 25: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-4-28. ..................................................... A – 26

Table A - 26: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-4-90. ..................................................... A – 27

xiv

Table A - 27: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-5B-28. ................................................... A – 28

Table A - 28: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-5B-90. ................................................... A – 29

Table A - 29: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-6-28. ..................................................... A – 30

Table A - 30: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-6-90. ..................................................... A – 31

Table A - 31: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-A. .......................................................... A – 32

Table A - 32: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-B. .......................................................... A – 33

Table A - 33: Properties of CTE specimen set KC100. ......................................................... A – 34

Table A - 34: Properties of CTE specimen set BB100. ......................................................... A – 35

Table A - 35: Properties of concrete cores taken from slab number 1 along SC-80. ............ A – 38

Table A - 36: Properties of concrete cores taken from slab number 2 along SC-80. ............ A – 40

Table A - 37: Properties of concrete cores taken from slab number 3 along SC-80. ............ A – 42

Table A - 38: Coefficient of thermal expansion of 28-day specimens using Tex-428-A Method A

– 44

Table A - 39: Coefficient of thermal expansion of 90-day specimens using Tex-428-A Method A

– 45

1

Chapter 1: Introduction

The focus of this report was to determine the Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (CTE) of

typical Portland Cement Concrete (PCC) mixtures with differing South Carolina (SC) aggregate

sources. The design software, Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG), uses a

default CTE value that is not specific to the state; thus, the South Carolina Department of

Transportation (SCDOT) was interested in identifying the CTE of aggregate sources likely to be

used in the production of concrete pavements in South Carolina.

1.1. Problem Statement With Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) support, American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) officially adopted a new "mechanistic-

empirical" process for designing pavements in which nationally calibrated models are used to

simulate and predict pavement behavior that are best-fit approximations based on observations

from across the United States and Canada. Unfortunately, the predicted pavement outcomes using

national models may not be accurate for specific locations. For this reason, virtually all states that

use AASHTO pavement design methods are strongly encouraged to perform a calibration of the

new pavement models to local conditions. Due to the significant difference between the new

process and the old procedure, the design inputs are totally different and frequently based on

properties that the SCDOT has not previously measured. While some inputs can be reasonably

estimated, it is important to actually measure key properties that have been found to have the

greatest impact on design predictions to ensure accurate pavement designs. In 2010, the SCDOT

research project, “Mechanistic/Empirical Design Guide Implementation,” found that the CTE of

PCC is a key input in performance predictions for concrete pavement and is strongly influenced

by the local materials used. It was not known, however, if the default CTE values used in the

design procedure were representative of SC materials and conditions.

This project involved determining the CTE of concrete mixtures made with local sand and

coarse aggregates used in the production of SC concrete pavements. With this data, an estimation

of CTE of current and proposed pavement designs can be determined and used in MEPDG input

2

parameters. The CTE of concrete pavements, in conjunction with pavement thickness, effects

percent cracking projects generated by the MEPDG software. This study provides the regional

calibration data for SC to be used alternatively to their respective default parameters in level 2 and

3 MEPDG inputs.

1.2. Project Objectives Part 1: Evaluation of CTE of SC concrete aggregates

• A total of 6 sets of 18 cylindrical concrete specimens were produced for the primary

objective of the study. Properties tested include determination of the CTE, unit weight,

compressive strength, and splitting tensile strength at ages of 28-days and 90-days.

• A set of 3 cylindrical cement paste specimens and 3 cylindrical mortar specimens were

produced; mixture proportions matched those found in the primary concrete mix design.

The CTE values of these specimens were measured.

• The compressive strengths of the 28-day old specimens were determined. These results

used to estimate level 2 MPEDG compressive strength inputs.

• Sets of 3 solid aggregate cores (dimensions consistent with specimens prepared for CTE

testing) were produced from 2 of the 3 coarse aggregate sources used in this study. The

CTE values of these specimens were measured. In addition, specimens were used in the

verification of bulk specific gravity of the aggregate.

• The CTE of cement paste, fine aggregate (natural sand), and three SC coarse aggregates

were determined.

Part 2: Evaluation of CTE of in-field PCC pavement, SC-80.

• A total of 3 sets of 3 cylindrical cored specimens were taken from a section concrete

pavement along SC-80, between the intersections of SC-29 and SC-101. Each set of 3 cores

represented the following locations across a single slab: leading end, middle, and trailing

end along the centerline of the outside travel lane. The highway in the selected location

had 4-lanes of travel (2 in each direction), grass median, and concrete shoulders.

• The following data were collected from each specimen: initial length, post-saw cut length,

average diameter and unit weight.

• The CTE, density, and compressive strength of each specimen was evaluated.

3

Chapter 2: Literature Review

Released in 2004 by the National Cooperative Highway Research Program (NCHRP), the

Mechanistic Empirical Pavement Design Guide (MEPDG) is an advanced pavement design

analysis to determine both the structural response and performance prediction within the design

life of PCC pavements. Although widely considered a fundamental property of PCC pavement,

the CTE has never been a critical factor in PCC pavement thickness design until recently when the

MEPDG considered it a direct input parameter that was closely related to pavement performance

[Applied Research Association, 2014]. Therefore, this new consideration makes it imperative to

accurately measure the CTE for PCC pavements to predict critical pavement distresses that occur

in PCC pavement lifecycles.

Several variables are now known to affect the CTE of concrete: the type and amount of

aggregate, the type and amount of cement, and the concrete age, followed by a minimal CTE affect

from cylinder size, water-cement ratio, sand-aggregate ratio and temperature.

Pearson proposed that differential CTE among constituents in concrete were to blame for

the rapid failure of a specific concrete structure, which durability experiments could not reasonably

place blame on freeze-thaw resistance or unsound aggregates. It was speculated by Meissner that

a more homogeneous aggregate composition was more durable then concretes having a more

heterogeneous aggregate composition (Pearson et al., 1942).

Parsons and Johnson emphasized the need to examine the CTE of aggregates typically used

in concrete (Parsons and Johnson, 1944). They used the interferometer method to examine the

CTE of numerous aggregate sources. In their study, they examined how the crystalline structure

of aggregate effected its CTE and they also determined the CTE values of 26 aggregate sources.

They observed that the measured CTE parallel and perpendicular of the crystalline axis can differ

greatly. Within the temperature range of -4°F to +140°F (-20°C to +60°C), the CTE of quartz

ranged from 4.1∥ to 7.5⊥ με/°F (7.4∥ to 13.5⊥ με/°C) while the calcite ranged from 14.3∥ to -2.8⊥

4

με/°F (25.7∥ to -5.04⊥ με/°C). Of the 26 aggregate sources, 19 samples were composed of the

chert with more than 99% quartz of random crystalline orientation. Those samples exhibited

relatively identical CTE of 6.3 με/°F (11.3 με/°C). Parsons and Johnson speculated that 6.3 με/°F

(11.3 με/°C) was the average CTE of quartz among all crystalline directions. The average CTE of

quartz as determined by matches well with recent tests of mortars produced with river sand

(Siddiqui and Fowler, 2015).

Hockman and Kessler conducted a study of the granites using the same interferometer

method described by Parsons and Johnson (Hockman and Kessler, 1950). They observed the CTE

value of 3.7 με/°F (6.6 με/°C) and 3.3 με/°F (6.0 με/°C) during a heating cycle ranging from +32°F

to +140°F (0°C to +60°C) for Rion and Newberry samples, respectively. While these values were

3.8 με/°F (6.9 με/°C) and 3.5 με/°F (6.3 με/°C) during a cooling cycle ranging from +140°F to

+32°F (+60°C to 0°C). When averaging the CTE of the heating and cooling cycles, the CTE

becomes 3.75 με/°F (6.75 με/°C) and 3.42 με/°F (6.15 με/°C) for Rion and Newberry samples,

respectively. Hockman and Kessler also reported irregularities in the expansion rate of the

aggregate when moisture was free to penetrate the aggregate surface. The effect of moisture on the

CTE of concrete remains a topic of interest in recently published studies as well (Siddiqui et al.,

2016; Siddiqui and Fowler, 2014).

Callan attempted to correlate the freeze-thaw durability factor of concrete with its

corresponding difference in CTE between coarse aggregate and mortar (Callan, 1952). He

suggested that the concrete durability factor reduced significantly when the difference in CTE of

the coarse aggregate and the mortar was further apart, suggesting that coarse aggregate having an

excessively small CTE would be more susceptible to freeze-thaw damage. Callan suggested that

the difference of CTE between coarse aggregate and mortar should not exceed 3.0 με/°F (5.4

με/°C).

The extensive studies performed by Walker and his colleagues suggested that the CTE of

concrete was related to the proportion of volume of the aggregates in the concrete (Walker et al.,

1952). Much of their conclusions was also reported by the current prevailing characterization of

CTE in concrete, such as more recent literature (Young et al., 2002).

5

Walker et al. works led Emanuel and Hulsey to present equations that predicted the CTE

of a concrete when the weighted volumetric portion and CTE of each ingredient of concrete

mixture was known (Emanuel and Hulsey, 1977). The Emanuel and Hulsey’s prediction model

equations are as following:

Equation 1: αC = fT (fMfAβPαS + βFAαFA + βCAαCA)

Equation 2: βP + βFA + βCA = 1

Where;

αC = CTE of the concrete

αS = CTE of saturated hardened cement paste

αFA = CTE of the fine aggregate component

αCA = CTE of the coarse aggregate component

βP = Volumetric proportion of hardened cement paste

βFA = Volumetric proportion of the fine aggregate component

βCA = Volumetric proportion of the coarse aggregate component

βT = Correction factor for temperature alteration (use 1.0 if controlled environment

or 0.86 for outside exposure conditions)

fm = Correction factor for moisture

fA = Correction factor for age of concrete

Siddiqui and Fowler modified the prediction equations proposed by Emanuel and Hulsey

to allow for the use of blended aggregates having varying CTE (Siddiqui and Fowler, 2015). In

their investigation, they prepared different sets of samples with coarse aggregates with different

CTE values. Then they used limestone, with the lowest CTE of all the aggregates, to replace

volumetric portion of the aggregates used to make their specimens. Figure 1 shows the best-fit

curves of the resulting CTE values. All values intercepted at the CTE value of concrete produced

with 100% limestone. This method of using best-fit curves to predict the CTE of individual

ingredients in the concrete was utilized in this project. Siddiqui and Fowler was also investigated

the impact of paste volume on the CTE of concrete (Siddiqui and Fowler, 2015). They first

6

proportioned the concrete for the cement content required to achieve theoretical paste volume.

Theoretical paste volume was the paste volume that was equal to the void content of the dry rodded

combined aggregates (coarse + fine aggregates). Then they deviated the paste volume (increased

and decreased) from the theoretical paste volume to determine the effect of paste volume on the

CTE of concrete. Their results showed that the CTE of concrete decreased as the cement paste

volume decreased up to the theoretical paste volume. However, the CTE increased when the paste

volume decreased below the theoretical paste volume. They hypothesized that the increase in CTE

below the theoretical paste was due to the internal water pressure. When the paste content was

below the theoretical paste volume, the concrete did not have enough paste to fill all the voids

between aggregates, this additional voids increased the porosity of the concrete. Higher porosity

in concrete led to higher amounts of liquid in the saturated concrete and since the liquid phase had

a higher CTE than the solid phase higher CTE in saturated concrete with higher void content was

observed. The measured CTE was observed to increase with the volume of cement paste increases

or decreases from the volume of voids in unit volume of the rodded aggregate in concrete. Its

suggested that more voids are present to allow for increased moisture in the concrete when the

paste volume is too lean to fill voids not filled with aggregate; internal water pressure was believed

to cause the increase in CTE. The increase in CTE when the cement paste volume is greater then

the allowable void space can be contributed to the increased portion of a concrete component

having a greater CTE then the aggregate.

Figure 1: Benefit of blending low-CTE coarse aggregate with high-CTE coarse aggregate to reduce the CTE of concrete (Siddiqui and Fowler, 2015)

7

Emanuel and Hulsey also examined the results of concrete moisture saturation (Emanuel

and Hulsey, 1977). Results from their study showed that that the CTE of concrete was greatest at

a particular saturation level as shown in Figure 2

Figure 2: Variation of CTE of results from three studies complied to show correlation of CTE of

concrete at different saturation levels (Emanuel and Hulsey, 1977).

In their use of CTE to reduce pavement stress in Jointed Plain Concrete Pavements (JPCP),

Mallela and his colleagues found that an increase in CTE led to increased cracking, joint faulting,

and International Roughness Index (IRI) in JPCP [Mallea et al., 2005]. In their examination of

673 cores from different pavement sections throughout the US, they also found a range of CTE

values of PCC is between 5 and 7 με/°F (9 and 12.6 με/°C). The specific results of this Long Term

Pavement Performance (LTPP) program also found that concrete made from igneous aggregates

had CTE values around 5.2 με/°F (9.4 με/°C), and concrete from sedimentary rock had a typical

value of 6 με/°F (10.8 με/°C). The mean CTE value of the entire data set was 5.7 με/°F (10.3

με/°C).

In another separate CTE analysis, Mindness et al. determined a range of 3.3 με/°F and 6.1

to 7.2 με/°F (6 με/°C and 11 to 13 με/°C), in limestone and quartzite samples respectively and that

the CTE of cement pastes ranged between 10 and 11.1 με/°F (18 and 20 με/°C) [Mindess et al.,

2003]. Consequently, the proportion of coarse aggregate in concrete mixtures should be considered

when estimating the CTE.

8

For concrete with crushed limestone and siliceous sand, the CTE decreases significantly

when the amount of crushed limestone increases. Although this increase is due to a smaller amount

of CTE in the limestone than the cement paste [Mindess et al., 2003], with quartz gravel and

siliceous sand, the concrete CTE increases slowly with the increase of the amount of quartz gravel.

In their study of porous limestone, river gravel, and dense limestone, Alungbe et al. found that the

CTEs of each of these aggregates differed significantly from one another. They also concluded

that the water/cement ratio (0.53, 0.45, and 0.33) and cement content (508 lb/yd3, 564 lb/yd3, and

752 lb/yd3) did not statistically show significant effects on the CTE [Alungbe et al., 1992].

Similarly, Won concluded that the aggregate geology, the volume of aggregate within the

mixture, and the age of the specimen at the time of testing all affected the CTE of PCC. They also

elucidated a near linear relationship between the percent volume of coarse aggregate in the

concrete mixture and the resultant CTE, and found that the CTE values remained static for three

weeks with the age of concrete [Won, 2005].

However, in their statistical investigation of the impact of sample age with an aggregate

geology, Buck et al. concluded that the magnitude of CTE at 28 days was significantly lower than

that of CTE at 90 and 180 days for most aggregate types. The difference of CTE between 28 days

and 180 days varied from 0.08 to 0.52 με/°F (0.15 to 0.94 με/°C) [Buch et al., 2008]. They also

found that the average 28-day CTE for concrete cylinders containing limestone, was 4.54 µε /°F

(8.18 µε /°C), for concrete cylinders with dolomite coarse aggregate, ranged from 5.87 to 5.92 µε

/°F (10.57 to 10.65 µε/oC), for concrete cylinders with a gravel coarse aggregate, was 5.84 µε /°F

(10.52 µε /°C) for concrete cylinders made with slag, was 5.71 µε /°F (10.27 µε /°C), and for

concrete cylinders containing gabbro, which is an intrusive igneous rock for the coarse aggregate,

was 5.41 µε /°F (9.73 µε/°C).

In their use of the MEPDG program to study the effects of CTE on pavement performance,

Tanesi et al. found that an increase in the CTE value did indeed increase transverse cracking and

faulting. Specifically, transverse cracking increased 15% between the CTE values of 5.5 µε /°F

(9.90 µε /°C) and 6.5 µε /°F (11.7 µε /°C) and approximately 32% between the CTE values of 6.5

9

µε /°F (11.7 µε/°C) and 7.5 µε /°F (13.5 µε /°C). Specifically, transverse cracking was very

prominent while faulting [Tanesi, 2007].

To explain the reasons for irregular longitudinal cracking, Chen and his colleagues

performed field investigations on several PCC pavement segments. They compared a southbound

segment of road with considerable cracking to a segment from northbound lane in the same

location with no cracking. It was determined that the northbound lanes consisted of limestone

aggregate and the southbound lanes consisted of siliceous river gravel aggregate. They concluded

that the limestone, which has a relatively low CTE, expanded and contracted less than the siliceous

river gravel, which has a relatively high CTE. Because of these conclusions, many Texas

Department of Transportation (TxDOT) districts no longer allow the use of coarse aggregate that

results in a CTE higher than 6 µε /°F (10.8 µε /°C) [Chen and Won, 2007].

Research conducted the last 10 years has been interested in using the CTE values of

concrete in the MEPDG. This software provides default parameters based on nationally calibrated

values, as summarized in Table 1 (Guclu et al., 2009). These values are subject to change when a

state can provide regionally calibrated values to use as the alternative to the nationally calibrated

defaults. The published studies (Crawford et al., 2010; Tanesi et al., 2010) suggest that each state

should determine the CTE values of concrete using aggregate typically used for concrete

pavements in that state.

10

Table 1: MEPDG default design inputs (Guclu et al., 2009)

Default Input Parameter Value Design life (years) Initial IRI – m/km (in/ mi) Terminal IRI – m/km (in / mi) Transverse cracking (% slabs cracked) Mean joint faulting – cm (in) Initial two-way AADTT Number of lanes in design direction Percent of trucks in design direction Percent of trucks in design lane Operational speed (mph) Mean wheel location – cm (in) Traffic wander standard deviation – cm (in) Design lane width – m (ft) Average axle spacing – m (ft) Percent of trucks (%) Permanent curl/warp effective temperature difference (°F) Joint spacing – m (ft) Dowel diameter – cm (in) Dowel spacing – cm (in) Base type Erodibility index Base/slab friction coefficient PCC-Base Interface Loss of bond age (months) Surface shortwave absorptivity *Infiltration *Drainage path length – m (ft) *Pavement cross slope (%) Layer thickness – cm (in) Unit weight – kN/m3 (pcf) Poisson's ratio Coefficient of thermal expansion (per F° x 10- 6) Thermal conductivity (BTU/hr-ft-F°) Heat capacity (BTU/lb-F°) Water/cement ratio Reversible shrinkage (% of ultimate shrinkage) Time to develop 50% of ultimate shrinkage (days) Curing method 28-day PCC modulus of rupture – kPa (psi)

25 1 (63)

2.68 (170) (limit) 15 (limit)

0.4 (0.15) (limit) 6,000

2 50 90 60

46 (18) 25 (10)

3.65 (12) 3.65, 4.6, 5.5 (12, 15, 18)

33, 33, 34 -10

4.6 (15) 2.5 (1)

30.5 (12) Granular

Erosion Resistant (3) 0.85

Bonded 60

0.85 Minor (10%)

3.65 (12) 2

25 (10) 24 (150)

0.2 5.5 1.25 0.28 0.42 50 35

Curing Compound 4,750 (690)

11

First published in 2000 and reconfirmed in 2006, the AASHTO-TP 60-00 method has been

the primary tool for measuring the CTE of hydraulic cement concrete [AASHTO, 2000].

However, an error recently discovered in this standard regarding the calibration of the testing

equipment resulted in the publication of a new supplement, AASHTO T 336-11[AASHTO, 2011].

This new standard, which is based on the TP 60-00, was introduced to rectify this calibration issue.

The principle of both methods is very simple: they both measure the length change of a saturated

concrete specimen placed vertically in a metal frame subjected to a specific temperature change

controlled by a controlled temperature water bath [Tanesi, 2010]. The deformation of the frame

is considered by measuring the length change of a specimen of known CTE, normally a 304

stainless steel specimen. While T60 considered a fixed value as the CTE of the metal frame, a

new AASHTO T 336-11 does not assume any value for the calibration specimen. It instead

requires that the CTE of the calibration specimen be determined by a certified independent

laboratory.

Establishing Standard Test Method for CTE Testing The CTE of concrete has been tested with various test apparatuses and methods, as seen in

the literature prior to the introduction of AASHTO T336. In the AASHTO method, the calibration

factor for the specimen holding frame was approximately 2.3 με/°C greater than when tested in

accordance to ASTM E2281. The change to the calibration method is important because as the

frame correction factor, Cf, increases, the effective CTE of the specimen being tested also

increases; meaning that all test results prior to AASHTO T336-11 could be relatively greater than

those were originally reported. As of 2010, many laboratories that have published CTE of PCC

have used custom-built equipment (Crawford et al., 2010). Many of the results obtained from

laboratories using custom-built equipment also used the assumed calibration factor of 17.3 με/°C

to calculated the CTE of the specimen. It was recommended that each laboratory should calculate

the correction factor with uniform calibration specimens regularly as the correction factor can

change over time. Recommendations for improved testing were also provided in (Tanesi et al.,

2010) which include recommendations for water level in the specimen water tank. When the water

level differs from when the last calibration of the testing was performed, the expansion of the

1 ASTM E228 Standard Test Method for Linear Thermal Expansion of Solid Materials with a Push-Rod Diloatometer.

12

frame would be different; meaning the calibration factor will not be valid to correct for the frame

expansion. This effect should not be an issue with test equipment that uses fully submerged testing

frames and LVDT’s. Siddiqui and Fowler conducted experiments to evaluate the effects of internal

water pressure on the CTE value. They concluded that the internal water pressure was associated

with the higher CTE values reported by the TxDOT2 method, Tex-428-A, versus the AASHTO T

336 method (Siddiqui and Fowler, 2014). Both test methods are based on the AASHTO TP 60

standard test. The results of this experiment showed the importance of maintaining internal

relative humidity during conducting the CTE test. Thus, it would be reasonable suggesting that

the research conducted on in-air specimens in the 1970’s would not valid. Nevertheless, more

research on the role of the moisture on CTE measurements is necessary to completely clarify this

issue.

2 Texas Department of Transportation, TxDOT.

13

Chapter 3: Materials and Experimental Procedures

Materials The following materials listed in Table 2 were used in the production of 6 sets of 18

concrete cylinders. 4 × 8 in. concrete cylinders were produced in a single batch. Images of the

aggregates used in Part 1 are shown in Figure 3.

Table 2: Part 1 material information

Material Description Production Location Supplied by Type I/II

Portland cement 1-ton pallet of 94 lbs.

bags

Argos USA 463 Judge St

Harleyville, SC 29448

Argos USA 463 Judge St

Harleyville, SC 29448 Type F fly-ash Sealed in 3

5-gallon plastic buckets

Santee Cooper Cross generation Station 553 Cross Station Road

Pineville, SC 29468

Metrocon 2399 Norris Highway

Central, SC 29630

Sand 1-ton bag Glasscock Co. Inc. 5378 Broad St

Sumter, SC 29154 Coarse

aggregate No. 1 1-ton bag each of 57 and 789

Martin Marietta Aggregates

2125 State St Cayce, SC 29033

Martin Marietta Aggregates

2125 State St Cayce, SC 29033

Coarse aggregate No. 2

1-ton bag each of 57 and 789

Vulcan Materials 239 Mill Creek Rd

Blacksburg, SC 29702

Vulcan Materials 239 Mill Creek Rd

Blacksburg, SC 29702 Coarse

aggregate No. 3 1-ton bag each of 57 and 789

Hanson Aggrgates 341 Becker Minerals Ln

Jefferson, SC 29718

Hanson Aggrgates 341 Becker Minerals Ln

Jefferson, SC 29718 Admixtures

½ gallon

containers Sika Corporation Metrocon

2399 Norris Highway Central, SC 29630

14

Figure 3: Images of aggregates; (a) Cayce 57, (b) Cayce 789, (c) Blacksburg 57, (d) Blacksburg 789, (e) Jefferson 57, and (f) Jefferson 789.

(a)

(b)

(c)

(d)

(e)

(f)

15

Laboratory Mixture Proportions (Part A) Mixture proportions of the principle experimental mixtures of this study are shown in Table

3. The mixture proportions were based on a mix design provided by the SCDOT.

Water/cementitious material ratio (w/cm) of ratio of 0.4 was used. This ratio yielded concrete with

acceptable percent air and slump values. Table 3. shows the mixture propositions used in this

investigation. The dosages of admixtures can be found in Table 4.

Table 3: Mix designs of laboratory test mixtures.

Material MX-1 MX-2 MX-3 MX-4 MX-5B MX-6 unit

Cement: 414 414 414 414 414 414 lbs./yd3

Fly-ash: 124 124 124 124 124 124 lbs./yd3

Water: 215 215 215 215 269 215 lbs./yd3

FAsand: 1143 1143 1143 1143 1143 1143 lbs./yd3

CA57 1602 1732 1602 2002 2014 2002 lbs./yd3

CA789+57: 400 433 400 0 0 0 lbs./yd3

AEA1: 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 1.5 oz./cwt

SE2: 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 oz./cwt

WR3: 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 5.5 11.0 oz./cwt 1 Air-Entraining Admixture: AEA-14 by Sika® 2 Set Extender: Plastiment® ES by Sika® 3 Water-Reducer: SikaPlast®-300 GP by Sika®

Table 4: Admixtures dosages used in laboratory mixtures MX1 thru MX6 (Part A).

Admixture unit MX1 MX2 MX3 MX4 MX5B MX6

Air Entraining Admixture (AEA): fl.oz./cwt ml/cwt

1.5 98

1.5 96

1.5 98

1.5 98

1.5 98

1.5 98

Extended Set Admixture (ES): fl.oz./cwt ml/cwt

2.0 131

2.0 131

2.0 131

2.0 131

2.0 130

2.0 131

Water-Reducing Admixture (WR): fl.oz./cwt ml/cwt

11.0 718

11.0 718

11.0 118

11.0 718

5.5 359

11.0 718

16

Three different coarse aggregates from three different quarries in South Carolina were

selected and used to prepare six different primary mixtures in this study. Mixtures MX1 and MX4

utilized Martin Marietta crushed stone from Cayce, SC; Mixtures MX2 and MX5B utilized Vulcan

Materials Company crushed stone from Blacksburg, SC; and Mixtures MX3 and MX6 utilized

Hanson Aggregates crushed stone from Jefferson, SC. The mixtures MXA and MXB represent

cement paste (cement, fly-ash, water, and admixtures) and mortar (MXA with addition of sand)

having identical ratios of constituents related to Mixtures MX1 thru MX6, except for MX5B. The

mixture MX5B was produced with an increased water/cement ratio of 0.50; intending to reduce

the compressive strength of the Blacksburg concrete to be more similar to that of the Cayce and

Jefferson concrete mixtures. These additional mixtures, MXA and MXB were essential in

determining the CTE value of the individual concrete components. In MX-1, MX-2, and MX-3

#57 coarse aggregates were used while MX-4, MX-5B, and MX-6 a combination of 80% of #57

and 20% of #789 coarse aggregates were utilized.

Each mixture was produced in a single batch. Concrete used to determine slump, air

content, and unit-weight was discarded. A total of 18 concrete cylinders were produced per batch.

Vibration and tamping-rod methods were employed to fill the concrete cylinders. Each specimen

had nominal dimension of 4-in. in diameter and 8-in. in length. Each specimen was removed from

their cylinder mold after 24-hr then introduced to the submersion water bath for curing, shown in

Figure 4.

Figure 4: Temperature controlled and circulating submersion curing bath used to cure all

laboratory mixtures.

17

Additional Aggregate Specimens

In addition to the laboratory specimens, large rocks from the Cayce and Blacksburg

aggregate sources were cored to produce specimens, shown in Figure 5, for CTE testing in

accordance to AASHTOO T336. A total of three specimens were produced from three different

rocks from the two quarries. The results were compared with the calculated CTE values for their

respective source.

Figure 5: Example of solid aggregate cores take from Cayce, SC (left) and Blacksburg, SC (right).

18

Field Cored Specimens (Part B) With the assistant of SCDOT staff, concrete cores from pavement slabs were collected.

The cores were collected from a section of SC 80 between the intersection of SC 101 and SC 29

in Spartanburg county. The locations of the three slabs are shown in Figure 6. Within each slab, a

core was taken from the leading end, middle, and trailing end of the slab as shown in Figure 7.

Figure 6: Map of sampling locations along SC 80.

Map data ©2016 Google 2000 ft

1

2

3

19

Figure 7: Example of sampling locations within a slab.

Relevant Testing Standards and Methods

Workability / Slump: ASTM C143 Standard test method for slump of hydraulic-cement concrete

A measurement of slump was taken immediately following mixing, prior to determination

of percent air content.

Unit Weight (Fresh): ASTM C Standard test method for density (unit weight), yield, and air

content (Gravimetric) of concrete

The fresh unit weight of the specimens was measured using this standard

Percent Air Content: ASTM C231 Standard test method for air content of freshly mixed concrete

by the pressure method

The determination of air immediately followed the determination of slump and unit weight.

Procedure for a type B meter was carried out for each batch of concrete. No correction was made

for the aggregate.

Leading Middle

Trailing

20

Compressive Strength: ASTM C39 Standard test method for compressive strength of cylindrical

concrete specimens

Concrete cylinders were submerged cured immediately following its removal from a mold.

Specimens remained submerged until the time of testing. Saturated Surface Dry (SSD) weight of

the specimens SSD weight was measured prior to testing for quality assurance. Reusable metal

caps with rubber pads were used to cap the tops and bottoms of every specimen.

Splitting Tensile Strength: ASTM C496 Standard test method for splitting tensile strength of

cylindrical Concrete Specimens

Similar to the cylinders used of compressive testing, concrete cylinders were submerged

cured immediately following its removal from a mold. Specimens remained submerged until the

time of testing. Specimen SSD weight was taken prior to testing for quality assurance.

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion: AASHTO T336 Standard method of test for coefficient of

thermal expansion of hydraulic cement concrete

4×8 in. concrete cylinders were cast and submerged cured immediately following their

removal from the molds. The top and bottom of each specimen were cut using wet saw-cut one

week prior to testing to make the height of the cylinders equal to 7 in. Specimens immediately

resumed submerged curing until the time of testing. Specimen SSD weight was taken prior to

testing for quality assurance. Specimen submerged weights were also taken for unit weight

determination (in accordance with ASTM C39). The CTE testing equipment manufactured by Pine

Instrument, shown in Figure 8, was used in this study, which was capable of testing up to three

specimens at once. Figure 9 shows one of the stainless steel CTE frame with titanium calibration

standard.

21

Figure 8: Pine CTE test equipment.

Figure 9: Stainless steel CTE frame with titanium calibration standard.

22

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion: Application of Tex-428-A method of calculating the

coefficient of thermal expansion using linear regression equations

The test specimens were not retested in the Tex-428-A testing method; however, the

method of calculating the CTE was applied to the data recorded using the AASHTO – T336 test

program. A strain versus temperature curve was generated for each specimen. A linear regression

line was generated from the strain data between the temperature range of 15°C and 45°C for each

rising and falling temperature. The CTE value was calculated from the following equation: = +

Where;

m = the slope of the linear regression line

L0 = the length of the specimen

Cf = the correction factor of the testing frame

The first rising segment of each data set was omitted from the average CTE because the

segment did not satisfy the temperature range requirement. The CTE value for the two complete

segments was averaged together to get the CTE value for the test specimen. The reported CTE

values for a mixture the average CTE of the three specimen sets for each mixture. The 28-day and

90-day CTE values were calculated using the Tex-428-A method.

Statistical analysis of laboratory specimens

The average result of each specimen set was compared to all other data sets using two-

tailed t-test with unequal variance to determine if any specimen sets was significantly different

from each other. Data sets that rejected the null hypothesis represent significant difference in the

two sets of data.

23

Chapter 4: Results and Discussions

Properties of Laboratory Mixtures (Part A) Mixture Proportions

The percentages of concrete constituents have been calculated to account for the specific

gravity of the concrete constituents, shown in Table 5 and Table 6. The volumetric percentages

of solids in the concrete, shown in Table 6, were used to calculate the CTE value of the individual

components in the concrete. The CTE value of the cement paste, , the sand, , and each

of the three coarse aggregates, , were calculated using the “Rule of Mixtures” equations. These

values are calculated and shown later in this chapter.

Table 5: Percentages of solid concrete constituents in laboratory mixtures by weight (Part A)

Material Cement Fly-ash Water Sand CA 57 CA 789 MX1 (Cayce) 10.6% 3.2% 5.5% 29.3% 41.0% 10.3%

MX2 (Blacksburg) 10.2% 3.0% 5.3% 28.1% 42.6% 10.6%

MX3 (Jefferson) 10.6% 3.2% 5.5% 29.3% 41.0% 10.3%

MX4 (Cayce) 10.6% 3.2% 5.5% 29.3% 51.3% 0.0%

MX5B (Blacksburg) 10.4% 3.1% 6.8% 28.8% 50.8% 0.0%

MX6 (Jefferson) 10.6% 3.2% 5.5% 29.3% 51.3% 0.0%

MXA (Paste) 54.6% 16.3% 28.4% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

MXB (Mortar) 21.8% 6.5% 11.3% 60.1% 0.0% 0.0%

Mixtures MX1, 2, 3, 4, 5B, and 6 contained < 0.014% of AEA, < 0.021% of ES, and < 0.107% of WR admixtures. Mixture MXA contained 0.069% of AEA, 0.109% of ES, and 0.551% of WR admixtures. Mixture MXB contained 0.028% of AEA, 0.220% of ES, and 0.220% of WR admixtures.

24

Table 6: Percentages of solid concrete constituents in laboratory mixtures by volume, excluding air content (Part A).

Fresh Concrete Properties

Results of slump, air content and unit-weight of the fresh concrete mixtures are shown in

Table 7.

Table 7: Properties of fresh concrete mixtures (Part A).

Mixture Identification: MX1 MX2 MX3 MX4 MX5B MX6

Slumpa: in. 2 1 5 3 9 3

Air Contentb: % 7.6 5.6 11.5 7.8 13.5 8.3

Unit Weightc: lbs./ft3

kg/m3 138 2,226

151 2,425

134 2,148

142 2,272

134 2,147

140 2,249

a. ASTIM C143 – 12 b. ASTM C231 – 10, Type B pressure meter. c. ASTM C231 – 10, calculated from recorded mass of concrete used in Type B pressure meter bowl.

The slump recorded for mixtures MX1 and MX4 was similar at 2 to 3 in. with similar air

content reading of 7.6-7.8 %. Mixtures MX3 and MX6 also showed similar slump of 3 to 5 in.,

with the air content of 8.3 to 11.5 %. The difference in slump can be attributed to the difference in

Material Cement Fly-ash Water Sand CA 57 CA 789 MX1 (Cayce) 8.1% 3.3% 13.4% 27.0% 38.4% 9.6%

MX2 (Blacksburg) 8.1% 3.3% 13.4% 27.0% 38.4% 9.6%

MX3 (Jefferson) 8.1% 3.3% 13.4% 27.0% 38.4% 9.6%

MX4 (Cayce) 3.4% 1.3% 5.5% 11.1% 19.8% 0.0%

MX5B (Blacksburg) 8.2% 3.3% 16.7% 27.0% 44.7% 0.0%

MX6 (Jefferson) 8.1% 3.3% 13.4% 27.0% 47.9% 0.0%

MXA (Paste) 32.5% 13.0% 53.3% 0.0% 0.0% 0.0%

MXB (Mortar) 15.7% 6.3% 25.7% 51.8% 0.0% 0.0%

Mixtures MX1, 2, 3, 4, 5B, and 6 contained < 0.033% of AEA, < 0.044% of ES, and < 0.240% of WR admixtures. Mixture MXA contained 0.128% of AEA, 0.174% of ES, and 0.956% of WR admixtures. Mixture MXB contained 0.062% of AEA, 0.085% of ES, and 0.462% of WR admixtures.

25

air content. A reduced dosage of WR and the increase in w/cm of 0.40 to 0.50 was attributed to

the difference of slump between mixtures MX2 and MX5B. Mixture MX5B also had a

considerable increase in its air content. Figure 10 shows the slump measurements of each mixture.

(a)

(d)

(b)

(e)

(c)

(f)

Figure 10: Images of slump measurements of laboratory mixtures; (a) MX1, (b) MX2, (c) MX3,

(d) MX4, (e) MX5B, (f) MX6 (Part A).

The maximum theoretical density of the laboratory mixtures were also calculated which

are shown in Table 8.

Table 8: Maximum theoretical density of laboratory mixtures (Part A).

Mixture Identification:

MX1 MX2 MX3 MX4 MX5B MX6 MXA MXB

Maximum Theoretical Density:

lbs./ft3

kg/m3 151.1 2,420.7

157.4 2,521.4

151.1 2,420.7

151.1 2,420.7

153.7 2,462.8

151.1 2,420.7

117.0 1,874.3

141.4 2,265.6

26

Compressive strength results

Table 9 and Figure 11 show the results of the measurements of the compressive strengths

of the concrete specimens. Variation within specimen sets were less than 10% (C.V. = < 10 %).

The average percent increase in compressive strength from 28-days to 90-days was 24 % with a

standard deviation of 3.6 %.

Table 9: Summary of 28-day and 90-day compressive strength results (Part A).

Age Mixture ID: MX-1 MX-2 MX-3 MX-4 MX-5B MX-6

28-days

Average psi: 4,269 6,148 3,685 4,644 2,557 4,333 MPa: 29.4 42.4 25.2 32.0 17.6 29.9

Standard deviation

psi: 172 215 136 121 151 72 MPa: 1.2 1.5 0.9 0.8 1.0 0.5

Coefficient of Variation

%: 4.0 3.5 3.7 2.6 5.9 1.7

90-days

Average psi: 5,495 7,498 4,394 5,923 3,177 5,230 MPa: 37.9 51.7 30.3 40.8 21.9 36.1

Standard deviation

psi: 349 90 209 111 97 35 MPa: 2.4 0.6 1.4 0.8 0.7 0.2

Coefficient of Variation

%: 6.4 1.2 4.8 1.9 3.1 0.7

Percent Increase from 28-day to 90-days %: 28.7 21.9 20.1 27.5 24.2 20.7

27

Figure 11: Compressive strength results of early-day (28-day) and later-age (90-day) of the

laboratory specimen sets (Part A).

The MEPDG, requires the average 28-day compressive strength for Level 1 analysis; and

the average 7, 14, 28, and 90-day compressive strength and a ratio of 20-yrs / 28-day compressive

strength for Level 2 analysis. A level 2 analysis should be considered more accurate compared to

Level 1 by accounting for the increase of compressive strength that concrete gains over time. In

addition, the Level 2 input maybe more appropriate than Level 1, when replacing cement with

pozzolans (that increase compressive strength at later ages) such as the Type F fly-ash used in this

study, where strength gains will be more noticeable beyond 28-days.

The scope of this study did not include testing the compressive strength of the concrete

mixtures at 7 and 14-days nor at 20-yrs. However, the compressive strength values of the

specimens in various times beyond 90-days were measured and the results are showing in Table

10.

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

0

1,000

2,000

3,000

4,000

5,000

6,000

7,000

8,000

Com

pres

sive S

tren

gth,

MPa

Com

pres

sive S

tren

gth,

psi.

Mixture Identification28-Day 90-Day

28

Table 10: Compressive strength results of the laboratory specimen sets tested at various later ages (Part A).

Mixture ID: MX-1 MX-2 MX-3 MX-4 MX-5B MX-6 Age days: 183 216 212 148 147 117

Average psi: 5,979 7,939 4,740 6,328 3,375 6,019 MPa: 41.2 54.7 32.7 43.6 23.3 41.5

Standard deviation

psi: 219 66 80 204 185 323 MPa: 1.5 0.5 0.5 1.4 1.3 2.2

Coefficient of Variation %: 3.7% 0.8% 1.7% 3.2% 5.5% 5.4%

A correction factor of 0.98 was applied to the compressive strength results as the ratio of length to diameter was 1.75.

Specimens had a nominal height of 7-in. and diameter of 4-in.

Figure 12 shows the results of Table 9 and Table 10. Based on these results, the prediction

estimations were determined for compressive strength. as shown in Table 11.

Figure 12: Projections of compressive strength for level-2 MEPDG inputs (Part A).

Table 11: Recommended level-2 MEPDG input values for compressive strength (Part A).

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

0 50 100 150 200 250

Com

pres

sive S

tren

gth,

x10

3ps

i.

Age, daysMX1 MX2 MX3MX4 MX5B MX6Log. (MX1) Log. (MX2) Log. (MX3)Log. (MX4) Log. (MX5B) Log. (MX6)

29

Set ID. Curve equation 7-day psi.

14-day psi.

28-day psi.

90-day psi.

20yr 28-day

MX-1 = 1,175.1 ln + 104.48 = 0.99350 2,391.1 3,205.6 4,020.2 5,392.2 2.63*

MX-2 = 1,540.2 ln + 310.52 = 0.97333 3,307.6 4,375.2 5,442.8 7,241.1 2.57*

MX-3 = 916.1 ln + 177.56 = 0.97601 1,960.2 2,595.2 3,230.2 4,299.8 2.58*

MX-4 = 1,288.8 ln + 90.559 = 0.99537 2,598.4 3,491.8 4,385.1 5,889.9 2.64*

MX-5B = 690.05 ln + 65.417 = 0.99189 1,408.2 1,886.5 2,364.8 3,170.5 2.62*

MX-6 = 1,222.3 ln + 47.324 = 0.99211 2,425.8 3,273.0 4,120.3 5,547.4 2.65* * The value exceeds the maximum ratio allowable by the input field in MEPDG; Thus, the ratio of 2.0 should be used.

Splitting tensile strength results

The splitting tensile strength results are summarized in Table 12 and Figure 13. Results

showed that there was no significant difference between the 28-day splitting tensile strength in

mixtures MX1 or MX2. Mixture MX3 was significantly different than MX5B and MX6. Mixtures

MX4 and MX6 were not significantly different, however, both mixtures were significantly

different than MX5B. The results of the 90-day old specimens, showed that only mixture MX2

was significantly different than all other mixtures.

30

Table 12: Summary of 28-day and 90-day splitting tensile strength results (Part A).

Age Mixture ID: MX-1 MX-2 MX-3 MX-4 MX-5B MX-6

28-days

Average psi: 494 495 406 508 377 488

MPa: 3.4 3.4 2.8 3.5 2.6 3.4

Standard deviation

psi: 56 48 4 49 7 68

MPa: 0.39 0.33 0.02 0.34 0.05 0.14

Coefficient of Variation %: 11.4 9.8 0.9 9.7 2.0 4.1

90-days

Average psi: 562 715 489 569 452 467 MPa: 3.9 4.9 3.4 3.9 3.1 3.2

Standard deviation

psi: 63 25 28 58 34 68 MPa: 0.44 0.17 0.19 0.40 0.23 0.47

Coefficient of Variation %: 11.2 3.5 5.7 10.2 7.5 14.5

Percent Increase from 28-day to 90-days of age %: 13.8 44.4 20.1 20.4 19.9 (-4.3)

Figure 13: Splitting tensile strength results of early-age (28-day) and later-age (90-day) submerged-

cured specimen sets (Part A).

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

700

800

Split

ting

Tens

ile S

treng

th, M

Pa

Splin

tting

Ten

sile

Stre

ngth

, psi.

Set Identification

28-day 90-day met

31

Density and Air Content

The density and air content of the specimens at 28 and 90-days were calculated and the results are

given in

Table 13 and Table 14 and Figure 14.

Table 13: Summary density results of 28-day and 90-day CTE specimen sets (Part A).

Age Mixture ID: MX-1 MX-2 MX-3 MX-4 MX-5B MX-6 MXA MXB

28-days

Average lbs./ft3 140.3 151.8 136.3 142.3 138.0 140.5 118.0 130.2

kg/m3 2,246.9 2,431.6 2,183.2 2,279.3 2,210.5 2,255.1 1,889.4 2,085.7

Standard deviation

lbs./ft3 0.33 0.18 0.67 0.30 1.00 0.28 0.28 0.39

kg/m3 5.29 2.83 10.8 4.85 16.09 4.41 4.44 6.20

Coefficient of V i i

%: 0.2 0.1 0.5 0.2 0.7 0.2 0.2 0.3

90-days

Average lbs./ft3 140.4 151.9 137.6 141.8 138.6 140.5 .. ..

kg/m3 2,249.5 2,433.9 2,204.5 2,270.6 2,219.9 2,250.8 .. ..

Standard deviation

lbs./ft3 0.40 0.21 0.76 0.40 0.77 0.32 .. ..

kg/m3 6.40 3.34 12.2 6.40 12.35 5.18 .. ..

Coefficient of V i i

% 0.3 0.1 0.6 0.3 0.6 0.2 .. ..

Table 14: Average air content of hardened CTE specimens (Part A). Mixture ID: MX-1 MX-2 MX-3 MX-4 MX-5B MX-6 28-day Average %: 7.2 3.6 9.8 5.8 10.2 7.0

90-day Average %: 7.1 3.5 8.9 6.2 9.9 7.0

Difference in Average Percent Air Content %: (-0.1) (-0.1) (-0.9) 0.4 (-0.4) (-0.0)

Percent Increase of Average Percent Air Content %: (-1.5) (-2.5) (-9.0) 6.1 (-3.7) (-0.4)

Air content determined using the maximum theoretical density and actual density of hardened concrete specimens.

32

33

Figure 14: Comparison of early-age (28-day) and later-age (90-day) measured density values of

laboratory produced specimen sets (Part A).

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Results

The coefficient of thermal expansion results are summarized in Table 15 and Figure 15.

All specimens were submerged until the time of the test. The average CTE results of 28-day and

90-day data sets are shown in Table 16. The mixtures containing Cayce and Blacksburg aggregates

both showed a small percent increase in CTE between 28-days and 90-days of age. The mixtures

containing Jefferson aggregate showed a small percent decrease in CTE between 28 and 90-days

of age.

1,762

1,862

1,962

2,062

2,162

2,262

2,362

2,462

2,562

110

115

120

125

130

135

140

145

150

155

160

Den

sity,

kg/

m3

Den

sity,

lbs./

ft3

Set Identification

28-day 90-day

34

Table 15: Summary of average 28-day and 90-day CTE results (Part A). Age Mixture ID: MX-1 MX-2 MX-3 MX-4 MX-5B MX-

6 MXA MXB

28-days

Average με/°F: 4.823 5.252 5.055 4.845 5.269 5.322 7.303 6.574

με/°C: 8.682 9.453 9.098 8.721 9.484 9.580 13.146 11.832

Standard deviation

με/°F: 0.094 0.016 0.080 0.050 0.038 0.178 0.067 0.024

με/°C: 0.168 0.030 0.144 0.091 0.069 0.320 0.121 0.044

Coefficient of Variation %:

1.9 0.3 1.6 1.0 0.7 3.3 0.9 0.4

90-days

Average με/°F: 4.907 5.512 5.020 5.103 5.432 5.193 .. ..

με/°C: 8.832 9.921 9.036 9.185 9.778 9.347 .. ..

Standard deviation

με/°F: 0.011 0.037 0.082 0.025 0.090 0.104 .. ..

με/°C: 0.020 0.067 0.148 0.045 0.163 0.187 .. ..

Coefficient of Variation %: 0.2 0.7 1.6 0.5 1.7 2.0 .. ..

Percent Increase from 28-day strength

%: 1.73 4.95 -0.68 5.32 3.11 -2.44 .. ..

35

Figure 15: Comparison of early-age (28-day) and later-age (90-day) measured CTE values of

laboratory produced specimen sets (Part A).

7.2

7.6

8.0

8.4

8.8

9.2

9.6

10.0

10.4

10.8

11.2

11.6

12.0

12.4

12.8

13.2

13.6

14.0

14.4

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

6.2

6.4

6.6

6.8

7.0

7.2

7.4

7.6

Coe

ffice

nt o

f The

rmal

Exp

ansio

n, m

m/m

m/°C

Coe

ffici

ent o

f The

rmal

Exp

ansio

n, in

./in.

/°F

Mixture Identification

28-day 90-day

36

Table 16: Summary of average CTE results of combined 28 and 90-day results (Part A).

Mixture ID: MX-1 MX-2 MX-3 MX-4 MX-5B MX-6

Average με/°F: 4.865 5.382 5.037 4.974 5.350 5.258

με/°C: 8.757 9.687 9.067 8.953 9.631 9.464

Standard deviation με/°F: 0.075 0.145 0.075 0.146 0.109 0.148

με/°C: 0.135 0.260 0.135 0.262 0.196 0.267

Coefficient of Variation %: 1.5 2.7 1.5 2.9 2.0 2.8

The “Rule-of-Mixtures” was used to determine the CTE value of the cement paste, sand,

and coarse aggregates used in this study as following:

∝ = ∝ ∝ = 1× 7.303×10 = 7.303×10 ℉⁄⁄

∝ = ∝ + ∝ ∝ = ∝ − ∝ = 6.574×10 − 0.4787×7.303×100.5213= 5.903×10 ℉⁄⁄

∝ = ∝ + ∝ + ∝ ∝ = ∝ − ∝ − ∝= 4.823×10 − 0.2486×7.303×10 − 0.2704×5.903×100.4810= 2.934×10 ℉⁄⁄

∝ = ∝ − ∝ − ∝= 5.252×10 − 0.2393×7.303×10 − 0.2602×5.903×100.5005= 3.932×10 ℉⁄⁄

37

∝ = ∝ − ∝ − ∝= 5.055×10 − 0.2486×7.303×10 − 0.2704×5.903×100.4810= 3.415×10 ℉⁄⁄

∝ = ∝ − ∝ − ∝= 4.845×10 − 0.2486×7.303×10 − 0.2704×5.903×100.4810= 2.980×10 ℉⁄⁄

∝ = ∝ − ∝ − ∝= 5.269×10 − 0.2723×7.303×10 − 0.2609×5.903×100.4668= 3.728×10 ℉⁄⁄

∝ = ∝ − ∝ − ∝= 5.322×10 − 0.2486×7.303×10 − 0.2704×5.903×100.4810= 3.972×10 ℉⁄⁄

The results of the “Rule-of-Mixtures” calculations are summarized in Table 17. The CTE

value of the cement paste is considerably greater than that of the aggregate, with a value of 7.303

με/°F. The CTE value of the fine aggregate, natural sand from Sumter, SC, was greater than any

crushed stone aggregate, with a value of 5.903 με/°F. The CTE value of the crushed stone coarse

aggregates, in order of increasing magnitude was Cayce, Jefferson, and Blacksburg with average

CTE values of 2.957, 3.694, and 3.830 με/°F, respectively.

38

Table 17: Summary of CTE values of concrete components using the “Rule-of-Mixtures” (Part A).

Material Description CTE Value, με/°F Cement Paste (with fly-ash, w/c=0.4, and admixtures) 7.303 Natural Sand (Sumter, SC) 5.903 Blended (75:25) No. 57 &789 (Cayce, SC) 2.934 Blended (75:25) No. 57 &789 (Blacksburg, SC) 3.932 Blended (75:25) No. 57 &789 (Jefferson, SC) 3.415 No. 57 Coarse Aggregate (Cayce, SC) 2.980 No. 57 Coarse Aggregate (Blacksburg, SC) 3.728 No. 57 Coarse Aggregate (Jefferson, SC) 3.972 Average Cayce crushed stone 2.957 Average Blacksburg crushed stone 3.830 Average Jefferson crushed stone 3.694

The 28-day CTE results, showed that concrete containing Cayce crushed stone was

significantly different then concrete containing either Blacksburg or Jefferson crushed stone. As

was expected, concrete containing the same aggregate with approximately identical volumetric

proportions would not be significantly different, even if aggregate gradation differs between

concrete mixtures. It was observed that mixtures MX1 and MX4, MX2 and MX5B, and MX3 and

MX6 were not significantly different, respectively. Additionally, mixtures MX2, MX3, MX5B,

and MX6 were considerably different. It can be concluded that the Blacksburg and Jefferson

aggregates did not produce concrete with significantly different CTE values. The 90-day CTE

results were not completely similar to the 28-day CTE analysis. The mixtures containing

Blacksburg and Jefferson aggregates were not significantly different, as was observed when

analyzing the 28-day CTE data. However, mixtures containing Cayce were significantly different.

At 90-days, concrete containing Cayce and Jefferson aggregates were not significantly different,

provided their gradation was similar.

Comparing calculated CTE with tested CTE of solid aggregate cores

The CTE values the cored aggregate specimens are shown in Table 18The average was

taken from sets of three specimens from both Cayce and Blacksburg aggregate quarries.

39

Table 18: Summary of CTE results of Cayce and Blacksburg solid aggregate cored specimens with average calculated CTE of aggregate in concrete specimens.

Mixture ID: Cayce Blacksburg

Average με/°F: 3.586 3.896 με/°C: 6.455 7.013

Standard deviation με/°F: 0.351 1.088 με/°C: 0.632 1.958

Coefficient of Variation %: 9.8 27.9

Average Calculated CTE from Concrete Specimens με/°F: 2.957 3.830

με/°C: 5.323 6.894

While the Cayce specimens were more consistent, the CTE of the aggregates from

Blacksburg were more closely matched the calculated CTE of the aggregates. The variation in the

Blacksburg data was attributed to the uniformity of the aggregates. The Cayce specimens appeared

to be more homogenous than the Blacksburg cores, as seen in Figure 16. The grain direction was

noticeable within the Blacksburg cores; safe to assume that Blacksburg did not expand and contract

uniformly in every direction. In both instances, the calculated CTE values were lower than the

measured CTE of the aggregate.

40

Figure 16: Examination of grain direction uniformity within solid aggregate cores, (a) Cayce cores

and (b) Blacksburg cores shown in bottom row.

(a)

(b)

41

Properties of Field Cored Concrete (Part B) The CTE, density, and compressive strength of the cored concrete specimens taken from

SC – 80 are summarized in Table 19 and also shown in Figure 17, Figure 18 and Figure 19. The

magnitude of compressive strength did not correlate with the magnitude of CTE of a particular

concrete. The average CTE values per slab are shown in Figure 20. The comparison between the

results showed no significant difference in average CTE between each slab.

Table 19: Summary of results of field cored specimens taken from SC-80 (Part B).

Slab ID.:

Core Location

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion

Density (Unit Weight) Compressive Strength

in./in./°F mm/mm/°C lbs./ft3 kg/m3 psi. MPa

Slab 1

Leading 4.699x10-6 8.458x10-6 151.77 2,431 4,689 32.3 Middle 4.930x10-6 8.874x10-6 150.56 2,412 6,351 43.8 Trailing 4.985x10-6 8.973x10-6 153.95 2,466 7,268 50.1 Average 4.871x10-6 8.768x10-6 152.10 2,436 6,103 42.1

Std. Dev.

0.152x10-6 0.273x10-6 1.72 27 1,307 9.0

C.V. 3.1 % 1.1 % 21.4 %

Slab 2

Leading 5.191x10-6 9.345x10-6 148.12 2,373 6,883 47.5 Middle 5.176x10-6 9.317x10-6 148.29 2,375 4,976 34.3 Trailing 5.211x10-6 9.381x10-6 149.54 2,395 5,213 35.9 Average 5.193x10-6 9.347x10-6 148.65 2,381 5,691 39.2

Std. Dev.

0.018x10-6 0.032x10-6 0.77 12 1,039 7.2

C.V. 0.3 % 0.5 % 18.3 %

Slab 3

Leading 5.062x10-6 9.112x10-6 147.91 2,369 5,334 36.8 Middle 5.045x10-6 9.081x10-6 148.68 2,382 5,177 35.7 Trailing 5.144x10-6 9.259x10-6 149.34 2,392 5,428 37.4 Average 5.084x10-6 9.151x10-6 148.64 2,381 5,313 36.6

Std. Dev.

0.0.053x10-

6 0.095x10-6 0.71 11 126 0.9

C.V. 1.0 % 0.5 % 2.4 %

42

Figure 17: CTE results of each cored specimen taken along SC-80 (Part B).

Figure 18: Compressive strength results of cored specimens taken along SC-80 (Part B).

7.2

7.7

8.2

8.7

9.2

9.7

10.2

10.7

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

Slab 1 Slab 2 Slab 3

Coe

ffici

ent o

f The

rmal

Exp

ansio

n, μ

ε/°C

Coe

ffici

ent o

f The

rmal

Exp

ansio

n, μ

ε/°F

Slab IdentificationLeading Middle Trailing

0.0

5.0

10.0

15.0

20.0

25.0

30.0

35.0

40.0

45.0

50.0

55.0

0.0

1.0

2.0

3.0

4.0

5.0

6.0

7.0

8.0

Slab 1 Slab 2 Slab 3

Com

pres

sive S

tren

gth,

MPa

Com

pres

sive S

tren

gth,

x10

3ps

i.

Slab Identification

Leading Middle Trailing

43

Figure 19: Density (unit weight) results of cored specimens taken along SC-80 (Part B).

Figure 20: Average CTE results of each slab taken along SC-80 (Part B).

2,250

2,300

2,350

2,400

2,450

2,500

2,550

140

142

144

146

148

150

152

154

156

158

160

Slab 1 Slab 2 Slab 3

Coe

ffici

ent o

f The

rmal

Exp

ansio

n, μ

ε/°C

Den

sity

(Uni

t Wei

ght),

lbs./

ft3

Slab IdentificationLeading Middle Trailing

7.2

7.7

8.2

8.7

9.2

9.7

10.2

10.7

4.0

4.2

4.4

4.6

4.8

5.0

5.2

5.4

5.6

5.8

6.0

Slab 1 Slab 2 Slab 3

Coe

ffici

ent o

f The

rmal

Exp

ansio

n, μ

ε/°C

Coe

ffici

ent o

f The

rmal

Exp

ansio

n, μ

ε/°F

Slab Identification

44

Results of MEPDG analysis The results of Part A of this report was used in the MEPDG software to generate distress

predictions. The initial distress predictions were conducted to establish a baseline in which to

compare parameters unique to South Carolina against the default parameters in the MEPDG

software. The baseline pavement was 11 inches thick with a joint spacing of 15 feet and dowel

bars with a diameter of 1.5 inches. The baseline input variables for CTE, unit weight, and

compressive strength were adjusted until the output predictions were below a threshold for faulting

and cracking, selected by the SCDOT design engineer. The results of Part A of this study were

used as level 1 input parameters. All other parameters remained identical to the base line inputs. It

was observed that increasing the CTE value would cause the percent cracking to increase;

however, when compressive strength increased, percent cracking was less affected by the increase

of CTE. It should be noted that these MEPDG results utilized a 20-yr/28-day ratio of 1.29.

45

Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Results Using Tex-428-A Method The results shown in Table 20 were calculated using the Tex-428-A methods on the results

obtained during the AASHTO-T336 testing of laboratory specimens. The Tex-428-A method

produced results that were less than those calculated by the AASHTO-T336 method.

Table 20: Summary of average 28-day and 90-day CTE results per Tex-428-A method (Part A).

Age Mixture ID: MX-1 MX-2 MX-3 MX-4 MX-5B MX-6 MXA MXB

28-d

ays

Average με/°F: 4.796 5.220 4.917 4.802 5.177 5.403 6.501 6.444

με/°C: 8.633 9.396 8.850 8.644 9.319 9.726 11.701 11.599

Standard deviation

με/°F: 0.055 0.037 0.038 0.085 0.049 0.318 0.039 0.123

με/°C: 0.100 0.066 0.068 0.153 0.088 0.573 0.069 0.221

Coefficient of Variation %: 1.2 0.7 0.8 1.8 0.9 5.9 0.6 1.9

90-d

ays

Average με/°F: 4.843 5.480 4.901 5.206 5.508 5.339 .. ..

με/°C: 8.718 9.863 8.822 9.371 9.915 9.611 .. ..

Standard deviation

με/°F: 0.070 0.057 0.048 0.123 0.139 0.055 .. ..

με/°C: 0.127 0.103 0.086 0.221 0.250 0.099 .. ..

Coefficient of Variation %: 1.5 1.0 1.0 2.4 2.5 1.0 .. ..

Percent Increase from 28-day

strength %: 0.98 4.97 -0.32 8.42 6.40 -1.18 .. ..

46

Statistical Analysis of Results (Part A) Statistical analysis of compression strength results was conducted and shown in Table 21

and Table 22. The analysis could identify the mixtures that were distinctly different from each

other with respect to their compressive strength. Only MX-1 and MX-6 appeared not to be

significantly different at 28-days. By 90-days, MX-1 was not significantly different from mixtures

4 and 6.

Table 21: Statistical analysis of 28-day compressive strength results (Part A).

Set ID. MX-1 MX-2 MX-3 MX-4 MX-5B MX-6

MX-1 1.0000 0.0003

Reject

0.0085

Reject

0.0368

Reject

0.0002

Reject 0.5934

MX-2 1.0000 0.0004

Reject

0.0018

Reject

<0.0000

Reject

0.0052

Reject

MX-3 1.0000 0.0007

Reject

0.0007

Reject

0.0047

Reject

MX-4 1.0000 0.0001

Reject

0.0315

Reject

MX-5B 1.0000 0.0003

Reject

MX-6 1.0000

The reported p-values are derived from a two-tailed t-test having unequal variance. Rejection criteria bested on 95%

confidence interval.

47

Table 22: Statistical analysis of 90-day compressive strength results (Part A).

Set ID. MX-1 MX-2 MX-3 MX-4 MX-5B MX-6

MX-1 1.0000 0.0106

Reject

0.0184

Reject 0.1806

0.0081

Reject 0.3213

MX-2 1.0000 0.0002

Reject

<0.0000

Reject

<0.0000

Reject

<0.0000

Reject

MX-3 1.0000 0.0015

Reject

0.0028

Reject

0.0208

Reject

MX-4 1.0000 <0.0000

Reject

0.0093

Reject

MX-5B 1.0000 0.0001

Reject

MX-6 1.0000

The reported p-values are derived from a two-tailed t-test having unequal variance. Rejection criteria bested on 95%

confidence interval.

48

Statistical Analysis of Splitting Tensile Strength (Part A)

Statistical analysis of splitting tensile strength results was conducted and shown in Table

23 and Table 24. The analysis showed the mixtures that were distinctly different from each other

with respect to their splitting tensile strength. Mixtures with blended coarse aggregate were not

significantly different at 28-days; however, by 90-days only mixture MX-2 was significantly

different from all other mixtures. Table 23: Statistical analysis of 28-day splitting tensile strength results (Part A).

Set ID. MX-1 MX-2 MX-3 MX-4 MX-5B MX-6

MX-1 1.0000 0.9689 0.1160 0.7658 0.0715 0.8785

MX-2 1.0000 0.0875 0.7793 0.0537 0.8148

MX-3 1.0000 0.0706 0.0086

Reject

0.0194

Reject

MX-4 1.0000 0.0452

Reject 0.5637

MX-5B 1.0000 0.0028

Reject

MX-6 1.0000

The reported p-values are derived from a two-tailed t-test having unequal variance. Rejection criteria bested on 95%

confidence interval.

49

Table 24: Statistical analysis of 90-day splitting tensile strength results (Part A).

Set ID. MX-1 MX-2 MX-3 MX-4 MX-5B MX-6

MX-1 1.0000 0.0302

Reject 0.1700 0.9082 0.0775 0.1475

MX-2 1.0000 0.0005

Reject

0.0268

Reject

0.0004

Reject

0.0092

Reject

MX-3 1.0000 0.1246 0.2145 0.6147

MX-4 1.0000 0.0572 0.1170

MX-5B 1.0000 0.7730

MX-6 1.0000

The reported p-values are derived from a two-tailed t-test having unequal variance. Rejection criteria bested on 95%

confidence interval.

50

Statistical Analysis of Coefficient of Thermal Expansion (Part A)

Statistical analysis of compression strength results was conducted and shown in Table 25

through Table 27. The mixtures 1, 2,3, 4, 5B and 6 were not significantly different. This suggested

that blended coarse aggregate had no significant impact on the CTE of the concrete at 28-days and

90-days. Mixtures 1, 3, 5B, and 6 did not show a significant difference of CTE from 28-days to

90-days. It was also concluded that the compressive strength did not affect the CTE value because

there was no significant difference in the CTE between mixtures 2 and 5B even though the

compressive strength was drastically different between these two mixtures containing Blacksburg

aggregate. Table 25: Statistical analysis of 28-day CTE results using AASHTO – T336 test method (Part A).

Set ID. MX1 MX2 MX3 MX4 MX5B MX6 MXA MXB

MX1 1.0000 0.0160

Reject

0.0313

Reject 0.7451

0.0047

Reject

0.0231

Reject

<0.000

Reject

0.0010

Reject

MX2 1.0000 0.0531 0.0056

Reject 0.5268 0.5627

0.0004

Reject

<0.0000

Reject

MX3 1.0000 0.0313

Reject

0.0250

Reject 0.0977

<0.0000

Reject

0.0010

Reject

MX4 1.0000 0.0003

Reject

0.0465

Reject

<0.0000

Reject

<0.0000

Reject

MX5B 1.0000 0.6595 <0.0000

Reject

<0.0000

Reject

MX6 1.0000 0.0004

Reject

0.0068

Reject

MXA 1.0000 0.0004

Reject

MXB 1.0000

The reported p-values are derived from a two-tailed t-test having unequal variance. Rejection criteria

bested on 95% confidence interval.

51

Table 26: Statistical analysis of 90-day CTE results using AASHTO – T336 test method (Part A).

Set ID. MX1 MX2 MX3 MX4 MX5B MX6

MX1 1.0000 0.0014

Reject 0.1418

0.0011

Reject

0.0098

Reject

0.0416

Reject

MX2 1.0000 0.0025

Reject

<0.0001

Reject 0.2546

0.0153

Reject

MX3 1.0000 0.2362 0.0043

Reject 0.0866

MX4 1.0000 0.0259

Reject 0.2824

MX5B 1.0000 0.0393

Reject

MX6 1.0000

The reported p-values are derived from a two-tailed t-test having unequal variance. Rejection criteria

bested on 95% confidence interval.

52

Table 27: Statistical analysis of 28-day versus 90-day CTE results (Part A).

Set ID. 28-day of Age

MX1 MX2 MX3 MX4 MX5B MX6

90-d

ays o

f age

MX1 0.2649 0.0013

Reject 0.0521

0.0376

Reject

0.0013

Reject

0.0102

Reject

MX2 0.0016

Reject

0.0410

Reject

0.0033

Reject 0.0763 0.4343

MX3 0.6295 0.4232 0.0056

Reject 0.1420

MX4 0.0041

Reject

0.0022

Reject

0.0136

Reject

MX5B 0.0630 0.3195

MX6 0.3548

The reported p-values are derived from a two-tailed t-test having unequal variance. Rejection criteria bested

on 95% confidence interval.

53

Chapter 5: Conclusions

Conclusions of Part A

• Concrete made from Blacksburg aggregate showed significantly higher compressive strengths and

splitting tensile strengths compared to the concrete made with Cayce and Jefferson coarse

aggregates.

• Cayce aggregates produced significantly stronger concrete versus Jefferson aggregates.

• CTE properties did not appear to be effected by the initial w/cm ratio.

• The average CTE value of Blacksburg solid aggregate cores was close to the values extrapolated

from the laboratory concrete specimens, while the CTE of Cayce cores was higher than that

extrapolated from the laboratory concrete specimens. This observation was attributed to the more

homogenous structure of the Blacksburg cores compared to the Cayce cores.

• The Tex-428-A method for calculating the CTE of concrete resulted a lower CTE value than the

AASHTO – T336.

Statistical analysis showed that the compressive strength of concrete and the fineness of the coarse

aggregate did not affect the CTE of concrete.

Conclusions of Part B

• There was no significant difference in CTE values of cored sample from the concrete pavement

slabs.

• No relationship was observed between the compressive strength and CTE values of the cored

samples.

54

References AASHTO, T 336: Standard Test Method for the Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of Hydraulic

Cement Concrete. 2011: Washington, D.C.

AASHTO, TP60-00: Standard Test Method for the Coefficient of Thermal Expansion of Hydraulic

Cement Concrete, TP60-00, 2000. 2000.

Alungbe G. D., Tia M., and Bloomquist D. G., Effects of aggregate, water/cement ratio, and curing

on the coefficient of linear thermal expansion of concrete. Transportation Research Record (TRR),

1992. 1335: p. 44-51.

Applied Research Association Inc. - ERES Consultants Division, Guide for mechanistic-empirical

design of new and rehabilitated pavement structures. 2004, National Cooperative Highway

Research Program (NCHRP) Champaign, Il.

Buch N., Jahangirnejad S., and Kravchenko S. Laboratory investigation of effects of aggregate

geology and sample age on coefficient of thermal expansion of portland cement concrete. in

Transportation Research Board 87th Annual Meeting 2008. Washington DC.

Callan, E.J., 1952. Thermal Expansion of Aggregates and Concrete Durability, in: Journal

Proceedings. pp. 485–504.

Chen D. and Won M., Field investigations of cracking on concrete pavements. ASCE Journal of

Performance of Constructed Facilities, 2007. 21(6): p. 450-458.

Crawford, G., Gudimettla, J., Tanesi, J., 2010. Interlaboratory study on measuring coefficient of

thermal expansion of concrete. Transp. Res. Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 58–65.

Emanuel, J.H., Hulsey, J.L., 1977. Prediction of the thermal coefficient of expansion of concrete,

in: Journal Proceedings. pp. 149–155.

55

Guclu, A., Ceylan, H., Gopalakrishnan, K., Kim, S., 2009. Sensitivity analysis of rigid pavement

systems using the mechanistic-empirical design guide software. J. Transp. Eng. 135, 555–562.

Hein, D.K., Sullivan, S., 2012. Concrete coefficient of thermal expansion (CTE) and its

significance in mechanistic-empirical pavement design, in: Annual Conference of the

Transportation Association of Canada: Advances in Pavement Evaluation and Instrumentation.

Available: Http://Conf. Tac-Atc. Ca/English/Annualconference/tac2012/Docs/session9/Sullivan.

Pdf.

Hockman, A., Kessler, D.W., 1950. Thermal and moisture expansion studies of some domestic

granites. US Bur Stand J Res 44, 395–410.

Mallela J., Abbas A., Harman T., Chetana R., Liu R., and Darter M., Measurement and significance

of the coefficient of thermal expansion of concrete in rigid pavement design. Journal of the

Transportation Research Board (TRB), 2005. 1919: p. 38-46.

Mindess S., Young J. F., and Darwin D., Concrete. 2 ed. 2003, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey:

Prentice-Hall Inc.

Parsons, W.H., Johnson, W.H., 1944. Factors Affecting the Thermal Expansion of Concrete

EXPANSION OF CONCRETE AGGREGATE MATERIALS........, in: Journal Proceedings. pp.

457–468.

Pearson, J.C., 1941. A Concrete Failure at Attributed to Aggregate of Low Thermal Coefficient,

in: Journal Proceedings. pp. 29–36.

Pearson, J.C., Hornibrook, F.B., Meissner, H.S., Young, R.B., Kellam, B., Davis, R.E., Withey,

M., Swayze, M.A., Walker, C.G., Reagel, F.V., Willis, T.F., 1942. Discussion of a paper by J. C.

56

Pearson: A Concrete Failure at Attributed to Aggregate of Low Thermal Coefficient, in: Journal

Proceedings. pp. 29–36.

Siddiqui, M.S., Fowler, D.W., 2014. Effect of internal water pressure on the measured coefficient

of thermal expansion of concrete. J. Mater. Civ. Eng. 27, 4014151.

Siddiqui, M.S., Fowler, D.W., 2015. A systematic optimization technique for the coefficient of

thermal expansion of Portland cement concrete. Constr. Build. Mater. 88, 204–211.

doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2015.04.008

Siddiqui, M.S., Grasley, Z., Fowler, D.W., 2016. Internal water pressure development in saturated

concrete cylinder subjected to coefficient of thermal expansion tests: Poroelastic model. Constr.

Build. Mater. 112, 996–1004. doi:10.1016/j.conbuildmat.2016.02.081

Tanesi J., Kutay M. E., Abbas A., and Meininger R., Effect of coefficient of thermal expansion

test variability on concrete pavement performance as predicted by mechanistic-empirical

pavement design guide. Transportation Research Record (TRR), 2007. 2020: p. 40-44.

Tanesi, J., Crawford, G., Nicolaescu, M., Meininger, R., Gudimettla, J., 2010. New AASHTO

T336-09 Coefficient of Thermal Expansion Test Method: How Will It Affect You? Transp. Res.

Rec. J. Transp. Res. Board 52–57.

Walker, S., Bloem, D.L., Mullen, W.G., 1952. Effects of temperature changes on concrete as

influenced by aggregates, in: Journal Proceedings. pp. 661–679.

Won M., Improvements of testing procedures for concrete coefficient of thermal expansion.

Transportation Research Record (TRR), 2005. 1919: p. 23-25.

Young, J. F., Mindess, S., Darwin, D., 2002. Concrete. Prentice Hall.

A - 1

Appendix

A - 2

Table A - 1: Properties of compressive strength of mixtures MX-1-28 and MX-1-90 Compressive Strength Set MX1-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX1-28-1 MX1-28-2 MX1-28-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.107 8.147 8.225

g 3,677.1 3,695.5 3,730.9

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 8” 8” 8”

mm 203.2 203.2 203.2

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 51,220 54,300 55,400

kN 227.84 241.54 246.43

Compressive Strength, psi. 4,076 4,321 4,409

MPa 28.1 29.8 30.4

Compressive Strength Set MX1-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX1-90-1 MX1-90-2 MX1-90-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.171 8.194 8.256

g 3,706.5 3,716.6 3,744.7

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 8” 8” 8”

mm 203.2 203.2 203.2

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 68,700 64,850 73,610

kN 305.59 288.47 327.43

Compressive Strength, psi. 5,467 5,161 5,858

MPa 37.7 35.6 40.4

A - 3

Table A - 2: Properties of compressive strength of mixtures MX-2-28 and MX-2-90. Compressive Strength Set MX2-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX2-28-1 MX2-28-2 MX2-28-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.781 8.877 8.929

g 3,982.9 4,026.6 4,050.3

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 8” 8” 8”

mm 203.2 203.2 203.2

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 74,160 78,430 79,170

kN 329.88 348.87 352.17

Compressive Strength, psi. 5,901 6,241 6,300

MPa 40.7 43.0 43.4

Compressive Strength Set MX2-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX2-90-1 MX2-90-2 MX2-90-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.801 8.834 8.783

g 3,992 4,007 3,984

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 8” 8” 8”

mm 203.2 203.2 203.2

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 92,910 94,860 94,860

kN 413.28 421.96 421.96

Compressive Strength, psi. 7,394 7,549 7,549

MPa 51.0 52.1 52.1

A - 4

Table A - 3: Properties of compressive strength of mixtures MX-3-28 and MX-3-90. Compressive Strength Set MX3-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX3-28-1 MX3-28-2 MX3-28-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 7.993 8.002 8.031

g 3,626 3,630 3,643

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 8” 8” 8”

mm 203.2 203.2 203.2

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 44,030 46,590 47,270

kN 195.86 207.27 210.27

Compressive Strength, psi. 3,504 3,708 3,762

MPa 24.2 25.6 25.9

Compressive Strength Set MX3-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX3-90-1 MX3-90-2 MX3-90-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.055 7.947 7.964

g 3,654 3,605 3,613

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 8” 8” 8”

mm 203.2 203.2 203.2

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 58,010 54,840 52,790

kN 258.04 243.94 234.82

Compressive Strength, psi. 4,616 4,364 4,201

MPa 31.8 30.1 29.0

A - 5

Table A - 4: Properties of compressive strength of mixtures MX-4-28 and MX-4-90. Compressive Strength Set MX4-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX4-28-1 MX4-28-2 MX4-28-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.221 8.262 8.300

g 3,729 3,748 3,765

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 8” 8” 8”

mm 203.2 203.2 203.2

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 60,090 57,760 57,220

kN 267.29 256.93 254.53

Compressive Strength, psi. 4,782 4,596 4,553

MPa 33.0 31.7 31.4

Compressive Strength Set MX4-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX4-90-1 MX4-90-2 MX4-90-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.309 8.307 8.245

g 3,769 3,768 3,740

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 8” 8” 8”

mm 203.2 203.2 203.2

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 74,570 72,970 75,750

kN 331.70 324.59 336.95

Compressive Strength, psi. 5,934 5,807 6,028

MPa 40.9 40.0 41.6

A - 6

Table A - 5: Properties of compressive strength of mixtures MX-5B-28 and MX-5B-90. Compressive Strength Set MX5B-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX5B-28-1 MX5B-28-2 MX5B-28-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 7.984 7.998 8.016

g 3,622 3,628 3,636

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 8” 8” 8”

mm 203.2 203.2 203.2

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 31,510 34,260 30,620

kN 140.16 152.40 136.20

Compressive Strength, psi. 2,507 2,726 2,437

MPa 17.3 18.8 16.8

Compressive Strength Set MX5B-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX5B-90-1 MX5B-90-2 MX5B-90-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.051 8.036 8.040

g 3,652 3,645 3,647

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 8” 8” 8”

mm 203.2 203.2 203.2

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 38,580 40,220 40,960

kN 171.61 178.91 182.20

Compressive Strength, psi. 3,070 3,201 3,259

MPa 21.2 22.1 22.5

A - 7

Table A - 6: Properties of compressive strength of mixtures MX-6-28 and MX-6-90. Compressive Strength Set MX6-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX6-28-1 MX6-28-2 MX6-28-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.226 8.182 8.193

g 3,731 3,712 3,716

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 8” 8” 8”

mm 203.2 203.2 203.2

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 53,540 54,460 55,340

kN 238.16 242.25 246.16

Compressive Strength, psi. 4,261 4,334 4,404

MPa 29.4 29.9 30.4

Compressive Strength Set MX6-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX6-90-1 MX6-90-2 MX6-90-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.232 8.232 8.262

g 3,734 3,734 3,747

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 8” 8” 8”

mm 203.2 203.2 203.2

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 65,500 66,230 65,440

kN 291.36 294.61 291.09

Compressive Strength, psi. 5,212 5,270 5,208

MPa 35.9 36.3 35.9

A - 8

Table A - 7: Properties of compressive strength of CTE specimens of MX-1-28. Compressive Strength of CTE Set MX1-28 tested at 183-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX1-28-1 MX1-28-2 MX1-28-3

Production Date - 12/09/15 12/09/15 12/09/15

Tested Date - 06/09/16 06/09/16 06/09/16

Age days 183 183 183

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 7.023” 7.064” 7.051”

mm 178.378 179.423 179.090

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 74,840 75,260 79,890

kN 332.90 334.77 355.37

Compressive Strength psi. 5,956 5,989 6,357

MPa 41.1 41.3 43.8

L/D - 1.76 1.77 1.76

Correction Factor - 0.98 0.98 0.98

Corrected Strength psi. 5,836 5,869 6,230

Mpa 40.2 40.5 43.0

A - 9

Table A - 8: Properties of compressive strength of CTE specimens of MX-2-28. Compressive Strength of CTE Set MX2-28 tested at 216-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX2-28-1 MX2-28-2 MX2-28-3

Production Date - 12/10/15 12/10/15 12/10/15

Tested Date - 07/13/16 07/13/16 07/13/16

Age days 216 216 216

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 7.058” 7.063” 7.065”

mm 179.273 179.398 179.458

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 102,780 101,330 101,280

kN 457.19 450.74 450.52

Compressive Strength psi. 8,179 8,064 8,060

MPa 56.4 55.6 55.6

L/D - 1.76 1.77 1.77

Correction Factor - 0.98 0.98 0.98

Corrected Strength psi. 8,015 7,902 7,898

Mpa 55.3 54.5 54.5

A - 10

Table A - 9: Properties of compressive strength of CTE specimens of MX-3-28. Compressive Strength of CTE Set MX3-28 tested at 212-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX3-28-1 MX3-28-2 MX3-28-3

Production Date - 12/14/15 12/14/15 12/14/15

Tested Date - 07/13/16 07/13/16 07/13/16

Age days 212 212 212

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 7.068” 7.064” 7.071”

mm 179.515 179.420 179.608

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 59,720 60,860 61,760

kN 265.65 270.72 274.72

Compressive Strength psi. 4,752 4,843 4,915

MPa 32.8 33.4 33.9

L/D - 1.77 1.77 1.77

Correction Factor - 0.98 0.98 0.98

Corrected Strength psi. 4,657 4,746 4,816

Mpa 32.1 32.7 33.2

A - 11

Table A - 10: Properties of compressive strength of CTE specimens of MX-4-28. Compressive Strength of CTE Set MX4-28 tested at 148-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX4-28-1 MX4-28-2 MX4-28-3

Production Date - 02/16/16 02/16/16 02/16/16

Tested Date - 07/13/16 07/13/16 07/13/16

Age days 148 148 148

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 6.974” 6.963” 6.978”

mm 177.143 176.848 177.233

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 78,140 82,380 82,920

kN 347.58 366.44 368.85

Compressive Strength psi. 6,218 6,556 6,599

MPa 42.9 45.2 45.5

L/D - 1.74 1.74 1.74

Correction Factor - 0.98 0.98 0.98

Corrected Strength psi. 6,094 6,424 6,467

Mpa 42.0 44.3 44.6

A - 12

Table A - 11: Properties of compressive strength of CTE specimens of MX-5B-28. Compressive Strength of CTE Set MX5B-28 tested at 147-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX5B-28-1 MX5B-28-2 MX5B-28-3

Production Date - 02/17/16 02/17/16 02/17/16

Tested Date - 07/13/16 07/13/16 07/13/16

Age days 147 147 147

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 6.991” 6.981” 6.989”

mm 177.575 177.330 177.528

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 42,140 46,010 41,690

kN 187.45 204.66 185.45

Compressive Strength psi. 3,353 3,661 3,318

MPa 23.1 25.2 22.9

L/D - 1.75 1.75 1.75

Correction Factor - 0.98 0.98 0.98

Corrected Strength psi. 3,286 3,588 3,251

Mpa 22.7 24.7 22.4

A - 13

Table A - 12: Properties of compressive strength of CTE specimens of MX-6-28. Compressive Strength of CTE Set MX6-28 tested at 117-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX6-28-1 MX6-28-2 MX6-28-3

Production Date - 03/18/16 03/18/16 03/18/16

Tested Date - 07/13/16 07/13/16 07/13/16

Age days 117 117 117

Avg. Dia., ⊘ in. 4” 4” 4”

mm 101.6 101.6 101.6

Avg. Length, L in. 6.977” 6.956” 6.939”

mm 177.225 176.673 176.263

Avg. Cross-Sectional Area, A in2 12.566” 12.566” 12.566”

m2 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3 8.107x10-3

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 74,660 74,920 81,970

kN 332.10 333.26 364.62

Compressive Strength psi. 5,941 5,962 6,523

MPa 41.0 41.1 45.0

L/D - 1.74 1.74 1.73

Correction Factor - 0.98 0.98 0.98

Corrected Strength psi. 5,822 5,843 6,393

Mpa 40.1 40.3 44.1

A - 14

Table A - 13: Properties of splitting tensile strength specimen sets MX-1-28 and MX-1-90. Splitting Tensile Strength Set MX1-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX1-28-1 MX1-28-2 MX1-28-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.223 8.236 8.277

g 3,729.7 3,735.9 3,754.4

Avg. Dia., d in. 3.997 4.001 3.998

mm 101.52 101.63 101.54

Avg. Length, l in. 8.007 8.018 8.028

mm 203.37 203.66 203.91

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 28100 22970 23520

kN 124.995 102.176 104.622

Splitting Tensile Strength psi. 559 456 467

MPa 3.85 3.14 3.22

Splitting Tensile Strength Set MX1-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX1-90-1 MX1-90-2 MX1-90-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.185 8.235 8.256

g 3,712.7 3,735.3 3,744.9

Avg. Dia., d in. 4.000 4.008 4.015

mm 101.59 101.80 101.98

Avg. Length, l in. 7.991 8.024 8.033

mm 202.98 203.81 204.05

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 31550 28160 25400

kN 140.341 125.262 112.985

Splitting Tensile Strength psi. 628 557 501

MPa 4.33 3.84 3.46

A - 15

Table A - 14: Properties of splitting tensile strength specimen sets MX-2-28 and MX-2-90. Splitting Tensile Strength Set MX2-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX2-28-1 MX2-28-2 MX2-28-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.943 8.948 8.966

g 4,056.7 4,058.6 4,066.7

Avg. Dia., d in. 4.001 4.005 3.997

mm 101.64 101.73 101.52

Avg. Length, l in. 8.035 8.069 8.090

mm 204.08 204.96 205.49

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 22170 26470 26730

kN 98.617 117.744 118.901

Splitting Tensile Strength psi. 439 521 526

MPa 3.03 3.60 3.63

Splitting Tensile Strength Set MX2-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX2-90-1 MX2-90-2 MX2-90-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.905 8.963 8.925

g 4,039.4 4,065.7 4,048.3

Avg. Dia., d in. 4.005 4.008 4.005

mm 101.73 101.80 101.72

Avg. Length, l in. 8.016 8.029 8.046

mm 203.60 203.94 204.38

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 37400 35910 35120

kN 166.363 159.736 156.222

Splitting Tensile Strength psi. 742 710 694

MPa 5.11 4.90 4.78

A - 16

Table A - 15: Properties of splitting tensile strength specimen sets MX-3-28 and MX-3-90. Splitting Tensile Strength Set MX3-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX3-28-1 MX3-28-2 MX3-28-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 7.924 7.934 7.963

g 3,594.4 3,598.6 3,612.1

Avg. Dia., d in. 4.002 4.007 4.001

mm 101.66 101.79 101.64

Avg. Length, l in. 7.995 7.974 7.999

mm 203.08 202.54 203.18

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 20390 20550 20270

kN 90.699 91.411 90.165

Splitting Tensile Strength psi. 406 409 403

MPa 2.80 2.82 2.78

Splitting Tensile Strength Set MX3-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX3-90-1 MX3-90-2 MX3-90-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.033 8.017 8.006

g 3,643.6 3,636.3 3,631.6

Avg. Dia., d in. 4.006 3.996 4.020

mm 101.75 101.51 102.11

Avg. Length, l in. 7.998 7.991 7.989

mm 203.15 202.96 202.93

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 26160 24430 23370

kN 116.365 108.670 103.955

Splitting Tensile Strength psi. 520 487 463

MPa 3.58 3.36 3.19

A - 17

Table A - 16: Properties of splitting tensile strength specimen sets MX-4-28 and MX-4-90. Splitting Tensile Strength Set MX4-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX4-28-1 MX4-28-2 MX4-28-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.231 8.275 8.304

g 3,733.7 3,753.5 3,766.5

Avg. Dia., d in. 3.986 4.008 4.009

mm 101.24 101.82 101.84

Avg. Length, l in. 7.987 7.991 7.998

mm 202.86 202.96 203.15

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 23860 28400 24240

kN 106.135 126.329 107.825

Splitting Tensile Strength psi. 477 564 481

MPa 3.29 3.89 3.32

Splitting Tensile Strength Set MX4-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX4-90-1 MX4-90-2 MX4-90-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.218 8.313 8.235

g 3,727.5 3,770.9 3,735.4

Avg. Dia., d in. 4.006 4.019 4.010

mm 101.76 102.10 101.86

Avg. Length, l in. 7.972 8.014 7.981

mm 202.48 203.56 202.72

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 31750 27860 26240

kN 141.231 123.927 116.721

Splitting Tensile Strength psi. 633 551 522

MPa 4.36 3.80 3.60

A - 18

Table A - 17: Properties of splitting tensile strength specimen sets MX-5B-28 and MX-5B-90. Splitting Tensile Strength Set MX5B-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX5B-28-1 MX5B-28-2 MX5B-28-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 7.985 7.999 8.035

g 3,622.1 3,628.5 3,644.4

Avg. Dia., d in. 4.007 4.017 4.009

mm 101.79 102.04 101.82

Avg. Length, l in. 8.001 7.993 7.994

mm 203.23 203.03 203.05

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 19380 18650 18940

kN 86.207 82.959 84.249

Splitting Tensile Strength psi. 385 370 376

MPa 2.65 2.55 2.59

Splitting Tensile Strength Set MX5B-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX5B-90-1 MX5B-90-2 MX5B-90-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 7.995 8.036 8.011

g 3,626.5 3,645.2 3,633.8

Avg. Dia., d in. 4.011 3.993 4.011

mm 101.88 101.43 101.87

Avg. Length, l in. 8.036 8.007 7.998

mm 204.11 203.38 203.15

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 22330 24630 21480

kN 99.329 109.560 95.548

Splitting Tensile Strength psi. 441 490 426

MPa 3.04 3.38 2.94

A - 19

Table A - 18: Properties of splitting tensile strength specimen sets MX-6-28 and MX-6-90. Splitting Tensile Strength Set MX6-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX6-28-1 MX6-28-2 MX6-28-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.186 8.196 8.210

g 3,713.1 3,717.7 3,724.2

Avg. Dia., d in. 4.016 4.001 4.009

mm 102.01 101.64 101.84

Avg. Length, l in. 8.022 8.025 8.000

mm 203.77 203.84 203.21

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 25800 23790 24280

kN 114.764 105.823 108.003

Splitting Tensile Strength psi. 510 472 482

MPa 3.52 3.25 3.32

Splitting Tensile Strength Set MX6-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX6-90-1 MX6-90-2 MX6-90-3

Weight, WSSD lbs. 8.209 8.212 8.222

g 3,723.6 3,724.8 3,729.4

Avg. Dia., d in. 4.010 4.022 4.020

mm 101.87 102.15 102.12

Avg. Length, l in. 8.033 8.008 8.008

mm 204.05 203.41 203.42

Ultimate Load, P lbs. 27230 23120 20430

kN 121.125 102.843 90.877

Splitting Tensile Strength psi. 538 457 404

MPa 3.71 3.15 2.79

A - 20

Table A - 19: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-1-28. CTE Set MX1-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX1-28-1 MX1-28-2 MX1-28-3

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 140.65 140.09 140.07

g/cc 2.253 2.244 2.244

WSSD g 3254.3 3265.9 3257.2

WSUB g 1813.5 1814.2 1809.1

Volume, V cc 1444.41 1455.34 1451.73

Length, 1 mm 178.05 179.15 179.49

2 mm 178.07 179.16 178.83

3 mm 178.87 179.30 178.64

4 mm 178.52 180.08 179.40

Average Length , ⊘ mm 178.378 179.423 179.090

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 16.109x10-6 15.102x10-6 18.680x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 22.40 22.40 22.40

T1 °C 50.12 50.12 50.12

T2 °C 10.27 10.27 10.27

T3 °C 50.14 50.14 50.14

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 27.73 27.73 27.73

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.86 -39.86 -39.86

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.87 39.87 39.87

Length measured, L0 mm 0.1020 0.1517 0.0983

L1 mm 0.0592 0.1181 0.0442

L2 mm 0.1125 0.1647 0.1140

L3 mm 0.0590 0.1178 0.0439

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0428 -0.0336 -0.0542

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0534 0.0465 0.0699

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0536 -0.0468 -0.0701

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0797 0.0751 0.0928

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1145 -0.1080 -0.1333

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1146 0.1080 0.1334

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0368 0.0416 0.0386

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0612 -0.0615 -0.0635

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0610 0.0612 0.0632

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 7.45x10-6 8.35x10-6 7.77x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 8.60x10-6 8.59x10-6 8.89x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 8.58x10-6 8.56x10-6 8.86x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 8.59x10-6 8.58x10-6 8.87x10-6

CTEavg in/in/°F 4.77x10-6 4.76x10-6 4.93x10-6

A - 21

Table A - 20: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-1-90. CTE Set MX1-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX1-90-1 MX1-90-2 MX1-90-3

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 139.97 140.68 140.64

g/cc 2.242 2.253 2.253

WSSD g 3219.6 3237.5 3217.9

WSUB g 1787.2 1804.4 1793.1

Volume, V cc 1435.99 1436.69 1428.37

Length, 1 mm 177.41 177.25 176.15

2 mm 176.94 176.76 175.85

3 mm 176.83 176.81 176.20

4 mm 177.40 177.17 176.26

Average Length , ⊘ mm 177.145 176.998 176.115

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 16.109x10-6 15.102x10-6 18.680x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 22.26 22.26 22.26

T1 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

T2 °C 10.29 10.29 10.29

T3 °C 50.16 50.16 50.16

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 27.89 27.89 27.89

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.86 -39.86 -39.86

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.87 39.87 39.87

Length measured, L0 mm 0.1080 0.1529 0.1031

L1 mm 0.0724 0.1226 0.0562

L2 mm 0.1237 0.1670 0.1256

L3 mm 0.0720 0.1225 0.0559

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0356 -0.0304 -0.0469

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0512 0.0444 0.0694

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0517 -0.0445 -0.0697

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0796 0.0746 0.0918

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1138 -0.1066 -0.1311

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1138 0.1066 0.1312

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0440 0.0442 0.0449

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0625 -0.0621 -0.0617

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0621 0.0621 0.0615

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 8.91x10-6 8.95x10-6 9.14x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 8.86x10-6 8.80x10-6 8.79x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 8.79x10-6 8.79x10-6 8.75x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 8.82x10-6 8.80x10-6 8.77x10-6

CTEavg in/in/°F 4.90x10-6 4.89x10-6 4.87x10-6

A - 22

Table A - 21: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-2-28. CTE Set MX2-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX2-28-1 MX2-28-2 MX2-28-3

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 151.97 151.62 151.82

g/cc 2.434 2.429 2.432

WSSD g 3534.9 3529.4 3536.4

WSUB g 2086.4 2079.8 2085.9

Volume, V cc 1452.13 1453.23 1454.14

Length, 1 mm 179.08 179.72 179.47

2 mm 179.51 179.07 179.23

3 mm 179.67 179.14 179.29

4 mm 178.83 179.66 179.84

Average Length , ⊘ mm 179.273 179.398 179.458

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 16.109x10-6 15.102x10-6 18.680x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 23.53 23.53 23.53

T1 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

T2 °C 10.27 10.27 10.27

T3 °C 50.14 50.14 50.14

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 26.61 26.61 26.61

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.88 -39.88 -39.88

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.88 39.88 39.88

Length measured, L0 mm 0.1054 0.1504 0.1015

L1 mm 0.0755 0.1305 0.0620

L2 mm 0.1231 0.1711 0.1285

L3 mm 0.0758 0.1311 0.0624

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0299 -0.0200 -0.0395

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0476 0.0406 0.0664

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0473 -0.0400 -0.0661

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0769 0.0721 0.0892

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1152 -0.1080 -0.1337

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1152 0.1080 0.1337

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0469 0.0521 0.0497

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0675 -0.0674 -0.0672

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0679 0.0680 0.0676

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 9.84x10-6 10.92x10-6 10.41x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 9.45x10-6 9.42x10-6 9.40x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 9.50x10-6 9.51x10-6 9.44x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 9.47x10-6 9.47x10-6 9.42x10-6

CTEavg in/in/°F 5.26x10-6 5.26x10-6 5.23x10-6

A - 23

Table A - 22: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-2-90. CTE Set MX2-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX2-90-1 MX2-90-2 MX2-90-3

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 151.70 152.04 152.09

g/cc 2.430 2.435 2.436

WSSD g 3493.7 3503.6 3499.1

WSUB g 2059.6 2068.6 2066.4

Volume, V cc 1437.69 1438.60 1436.29

Length, 1 mm 177.24 177.31 176.91

2 mm 177.07 176.99 176.74

3 mm 176.73 177.24 176.88

4 mm 176.71 177.68 176.94

Average Length , ⊘ mm 176.938 177.305 176.868

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 16.109x10-6 15.102x10-6 18.680x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 22.38 22.38 22.38

T1 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

T2 °C 10.30 10.30 10.30

T3 °C 50.17 50.17 50.17

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 27.77 27.77 27.77

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.85 -39.85 -39.85

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.87 39.87 39.87

Length measured, L0 mm 0.1050 0.1491 0.1053

L1 mm 0.0755 0.1248 0.0634

L2 mm 0.1187 0.1614 0.1257

L3 mm 0.0754 0.1250 0.0635

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0295 -0.0243 -0.0419

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0432 0.0366 0.0623

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0433 -0.0364 -0.0622

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0791 0.0744 0.0917

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1136 -0.1067 -0.1317

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1136 0.1068 0.1317

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0496 0.0500 0.0498

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0703 -0.0701 -0.0693

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0703 0.0704 0.0695

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 10.10x10-6 10.16x10-6 10.14x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 9.98x10-6 9.92x10-6 9.84x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 9.97x10-6 9.96x10-6 9.85x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 9.97x10-6 9.94x10-6 9.85x10-6

CTEavg in/in/°F 5.54x10-6 5.52x10-6 5.47x10-6

A - 24

Table A - 23: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-3-28. CTE Set MX3-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX3-28-1 MX3-28-2 MX3-28-3

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 135.61 136.96 136.30

g/cc 2.172 2.194 2.183

WSSD g 3139.7 3171.3 3159.7

WSUB g 1698 1729.4 1716.1

Volume, V cc 1445.31 1445.51 1447.22

Length, 1 mm 177.24 177.31 176.91

2 mm 177.07 176.99 176.74

3 mm 176.73 177.24 176.88

4 mm 176.71 177.68 176.94

Average Length , ⊘ mm 176.938 177.305 176.868

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 16.109x10-6 15.102x10-6 18.680x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 22.27 22.27 22.27

T1 °C 50.13 50.13 50.13

T2 °C 10.27 10.27 10.27

T3 °C 50.16 50.16 50.16

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 27.86 27.86 27.86

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.86 -39.86 -39.86

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.88 39.88 39.88

Length measured, L0 mm 0.1147 0.1506 0.1051

L1 mm 0.0908 0.1310 0.0697

L2 mm 0.1409 0.1747 0.1371

L3 mm 0.0903 0.1307 0.0694

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0240 -0.0196 -0.0354

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0502 0.0437 0.0674

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0506 -0.0440 -0.0676

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0806 0.0755 0.0935

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1153 -0.1080 -0.1337

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1153 0.1081 0.1338

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0566 0.0558 0.0580

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0651 -0.0643 -0.0664

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0647 0.0641 0.0662

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 11.32 x10-6 11.17 x10-6 11.60 x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 9.09 x10-6 8.99 x10-6 9.27 x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 9.04 x10-6 8.95 x10-6 9.24 x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 9.07 x10-6 8.97 x10-6 9.26 x10-6

CTEavg in/in/°F 5.04 x10-6 4.98 x10-6 5.14 x10-6

A - 25

Table A - 24: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-3-90. CTE Set MX3-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX3-90-1 MX3-90-2 MX3-90-3

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 138.37 137.66 136.84

g/cc 2.216 2.205 2.192

WSSD g 3174.3 3153.7 3147.7

WSUB g 1745.7 1727.1 1715.3

Volume, V cc 1432.18 1430.18 1435.99

Length, 1 mm 177.13 176.81 177.09

2 mm 176.79 177.11 177.35

3 mm 176.45 176.44 177.40

4 mm 176.34 176.37 177.06

Average Length , ⊘ mm 176.678 176.683 177.225

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 16.109x10-6 15.102x10-6 18.680x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 22.69 22.69 22.69

T1 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

T2 °C 10.29 10.29 10.29

T3 °C 50.14 50.14 50.14

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 27.46 27.46 27.46

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.85 -39.85 -39.85

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.85 39.85 39.85

Length measured, L0 mm 0.1032 0.1032 0.1447

L1 mm 0.0691 0.1135 0.0582

L2 mm 0.1194 0.1567 0.1249

L3 mm 0.0689 0.1132 0.0579

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0341 0.0104 -0.0865

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0503 0.0431 0.0667

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0506 -0.0435 -0.0671

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0781 0.0733 0.0909

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1134 -0.1063 -0.1319

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1134 0.1063 0.1319

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0441 0.0836 0.0044

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0631 -0.0632 -0.0652

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0629 0.0629 0.0648

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 9.09 x10-6 17.24 x10-6 0.90 x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 8.97 x10-6 8.98 x10-6 9.23 x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 8.93 x10-6 8.93 x10-6 9.18 x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 8.95 x10-6 8.95 x10-6 9.21 x10-6

CTEavg in/in/°F 4.97 x10-6 4.97 x10-6 5.11 x10-6

A - 26

Table A - 25: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-4-28. CTE Set MX4-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX4-28-1 MX4-28-2 MX4-28-3

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 142.10 142.13 142.64

g/cc 2.276 2.277 2.285

WSSD g 3273 3262.7 3276.7

WSUB g 1838.7 1833.2 1846.2

Volume, V cc 1437.89 1433.08 1434.09

Length, 1 mm 177.10 177.27 177.47

2 mm 177.33 176.90 176.99

3 mm 177.48 176.33 177.03

4 mm 176.66 176.89 177.44

Average Length , ⊘ mm 177.143 176.848 177.233

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 16.109x10-6 15.102x10-6 18.680x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 22.42 22.42 22.42

T1 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

T2 °C 10.30 10.30 10.30

T3 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 27.73 27.73 27.73

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.84 -39.84 -39.84

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.84 39.84 39.84

Length measured, L0 mm 0.1092 0.1486 0.1046

L1 mm 0.0734 0.1196 0.0574

L2 mm 0.1259 0.1643 0.1270

L3 mm 0.0728 0.1193 0.0572

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0358 -0.0290 -0.0471

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0525 0.0447 0.0696

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0531 -0.0451 -0.0699

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0791 0.0741 0.0918

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1137 -0.1064 -0.1319

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1137 0.1064 0.1319

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0433 0.0450 0.0447

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0612 -0.0617 -0.0623

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0606 0.0614 0.0620

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 8.82 x10-6 9.18 x10-6 9.09 x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 8.67 x10-6 8.76 x10-6 8.83 x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 8.58 x10-6 8.71 x10-6 8.79 x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 8.63 x10-6 8.73 x10-6 8.81 x10-6

CTEavg in/in/°F 4.79 x10-6 4.85 x10-6 4.89 x10-6

A - 27

Table A - 26: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-4-90. CTE Set MX4-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX4-90-1 MX4-90-2 MX4-90-3

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 142.10 141.83 141.31

g/cc 2.276 2.272 2.264

WSSD g 3272.5 3248.6 3253.5

WSUB g 1838.4 1822.3 1819.8

Volume, V cc 1437.69 1429.87 1437.29

Length, 1 mm 177.38 176.27 177.24

2 mm 177.73 177.14 177.12

3 mm 177.65 176.73 177.47

4 mm 177.54 176.23 177.26

Average Length , ⊘ mm 177.575 176.593 177.273

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 17.417 x10-6 16.256x10-6 18.709x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 20.96 20.96 20.96

T1 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

T2 °C 10.28 10.28 10.28

T3 °C 50.14 50.14 50.14

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 29.19 29.19 29.19

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.86 -39.86 -39.86

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.86 39.86 39.86

Length measured, L0 mm 0.1039 0.1435 0.1005

L1 mm 0.0602 0.1077 0.0542

L2 mm 0.1183 0.1569 0.1211

L3 mm 0.0593 0.1071 0.0535

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0437 -0.0358 -0.0462

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0581 0.0492 0.0669

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0591 -0.0498 -0.0676

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0903 0.0838 0.0968

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1233 -0.1144 -0.1322

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1233 0.1144 0.1322

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0466 0.0480 0.0506

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0652 -0.0653 -0.0653

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0642 0.0646 0.0646

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 8.99x10-6 9.32x10-6 9.77x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 9.21x10-6 9.27x10-6 9.24x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 9.07x10-6 9.18x10-6 9.14x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 9.14x10-6 9.23x10-6 9.19x10-6

CTEavg in/in/°F 5.08x10-6 5.13x10-6 5.11x10-6

A - 28

Table A - 27: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-5B-28. CTE Set MX5B-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX5B-28-1 MX5B-28-2 MX5B-28-3

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 137.28 137.57 139.14

g/cc 2.199 2.204 2.229

WSSD g 3164.5 3166.7 3205.8

WSUB g 1729 1733.3 1771.1

Volume, V cc 1439.10 1436.99 1438.30

Length, 1 mm 177.71 176.84 177.31

2 mm 177.55 177.29 177.27

3 mm 177.16 177.59 177.80

4 mm 177.88 177.60 177.73

Average Length , ⊘ mm 177.575 177.330 177.528

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 16.109x10-6 15.102x10-6 18.680x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 22.31 22.31 22.31

T1 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

T2 °C 10.30 10.30 10.30

T3 °C 50.14 50.14 50.14

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 27.84 27.84 27.84

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.86 -39.86 -39.86

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.85 39.85 39.85

Length measured, L0 mm 0.1096 0.1522 0.0962

L1 mm 0.0780 0.1284 0.0539

L2 mm 0.1258 0.1682 0.1191

L3 mm 0.0788 0.1294 0.0546

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0316 -0.0238 -0.0423

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0478 0.0398 0.0652

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0470 -0.0388 -0.0645

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0797 0.0746 0.0923

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1140 -0.1067 -0.1322

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1140 0.1067 0.1321

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0481 0.0508 0.0501

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0662 -0.0669 -0.0669

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0669 0.0679 0.0676

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 9.73 x10-6 10.28 x10-6 10.13 x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 9.35 x10-6 9.47 x10-6 9.46 x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 9.46 x10-6 9.61 x10-6 9.56 x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 9.41 x10-6 9.54 x10-6 9.51 x10-6

CTEavg in/in/°F 5.23 x10-6 5.30 x10-6 5.28 x10-6

A - 29

Table A - 28: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-5B-90. CTE Set MX5B-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX5B-90-1 MX5B-90-2 MX5B-90-3

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 138.80 139.22 137.73

g/cc 2.223 2.230 2.206

WSSD g 3190.9 3195.1 3145.5

WSUB g 1759.3 1766 1723.3

Volume, V cc 1435.19 1432.68 1425.76

Length, 1 mm 177.63 177.41 175.65

2 mm 176.94 176.93 176.09

3 mm 177.04 175.97 177.05

4 mm 177.33 176.93 175.93

Average Length , ⊘ mm 177.235 176.810 176.180

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 17.417 x10-6 16.256x10-6 18.709x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 23.01 23.01 23.01

T1 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

T2 °C 10.29 10.29 10.29

T3 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 27.14 27.14 27.14

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.86 -39.86 -39.86

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.86 39.86 39.86

Length measured, L0 mm 0.1020 0.1425 0.1047

L1 mm 0.0703 0.1162 0.0690

L2 mm 0.1241 0.1611 0.1333

L3 mm 0.0707 0.1165 0.0695

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0317 -0.0263 -0.0357

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0538 0.0449 0.0643

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0534 -0.0446 -0.0637

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0838 0.0780 0.0895

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1231 -0.1146 -0.1314

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1231 0.1146 0.1314

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0521 0.0517 0.0538

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0693 -0.0697 -0.0671

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0697 0.0700 0.0677

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 10.84 x10-6 10.77 x10-6 11.25 x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 9.80 x10-6 9.88 x10-6 9.56x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 9.86 x10-6 9.93 x10-6 9.63 x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 9.83 x10-6 9.91 x10-6 9.60 x10-6

CTEavg in/in/°F 5.46 x10-6 5.50 x10-6 5.33 x10-6

A - 30

Table A - 29: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-6-28. CTE Set MX6-28 tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX6-28-1 MX6-28-2 MX6-28-3

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 140.26 140.36 140.78

g/cc 2.247 2.248 2.255

WSSD g 3229 3221.9 3226.5

WSUB g 1795.4 1792.5 1799.3

Volume, V cc 1437.19 1432.98 1430.78

Length, 1 mm 176.96 176.34 176.10

2 mm 177.12 177.25 176.45

3 mm 177.44 177.05 176.19

4 mm 177.38 176.05 176.31

Average Length , ⊘ mm 177.225 176.673 176.263

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 17.417 x10-6 16.256x10-6 18.709x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 21.74 21.74 21.74

T1 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

T2 °C 10.27 10.27 10.27

T3 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 28.41 28.41 28.41

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.88 -39.88 -39.88

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.88 39.88 39.88

Length measured, L0 mm 0.0985 0.1419 0.0999

L1 mm 0.0579 0.1091 0.0549

L2 mm 0.1113 0.1546 0.1214

L3 mm 0.0567 0.1083 0.0544

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0406 -0.0328 -0.0450

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0533 0.0455 0.0665

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0546 -0.0462 -0.0670

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0877 0.0816 0.0937

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1231 -0.1145 -0.1315

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1231 0.1145 0.1315

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0471 0.0488 0.0487

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0698 -0.0691 -0.0650

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0685 0.0683 0.0645

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 9.35 x10-6 9.72 x10-6 9.72 x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 9.87 x10-6 9.80 x10-6 9.25 x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 9.96 x10-6 9.69 x10-6 9.18 x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 9.73 x10-6 9.75 x10-6 9.21 x10-6

CTEavg in/in/°F 5.44 x10-6 5.42 x10-6 5.12 x10-6

A - 31

Table A - 30: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-6-90. CTE Set MX6-90 tested at 90-days of age

Specimen ID unit MX6-90-1 MX6-90-2 MX6-90-3

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 140.44 140.87 140.24

g/cc 2.250 2.257 2.246

WSSD g 3255.2 3265.2 3242.2

WSUB g 1811.8 1821.8 1802.5

Volume, V cc 1447.02 1447.02 1443.31

Length, 1 mm 178.74 178.42 177.52

2 mm 178.64 177.91 178.33

3 mm 178.56 178.26 178.24

4 mm 179.06 178.78 177.87

Average Length , ⊘ mm 178.750 178.343 177.990

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 17.417 x10-6 16.256x10-6 18.709x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 22.13 22.13 22.13

T1 °C 50.14 50.14 50.14

T2 °C 10.31 10.31 10.31

T3 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 28.02 28.02 28.02

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.83 -39.83 -39.83

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.84 39.84 39.84

Length measured, L0 mm 0.1031 0.1409 0.0968

L1 mm 0.0587 0.1027 0.0534

L2 mm 0.1171 0.1521 0.1182

L3 mm 0.0584 0.1026 0.0532

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0444 -0.0382 -0.0435

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0584 0.0494 0.0648

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0587 -0.0495 -0.0650

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0872 0.0812 0.0933

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1240 -0.1155 -0.1326

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1240 0.1155 0.1327

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0429 0.0430 0.0498

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0656 -0.0661 -0.0678

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0653 0.0660 0.0677

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 8.56 x10-6 8.61 x10-6 9.99 x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 9.21 x10-6 9.30 x10-6 9.56 x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 9.17 x10-6 9.29 x10-6 9.55 x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 9.19x10-6 9.29 x10-6 9.55 x10-6

CTEavg in/in/°F 5.11 x10-6 5.16 x10-6 5.31 x10-6

A - 32

Table A - 31: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-A. CTE Set MXA tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MXA-1 MXA-2 MXA-3

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 117.93 117.69 118.24

g/cc 1.889 1.885 1.894

WSSD g 2712 2695.2 2714.7

WSUB g 1279.9 1269.1 1285

Volume, V cc 1435.69 1429.67 1433.28

Length, 1 mm 176.84 176.15 176.42

2 mm 176.72 176.44 176.21

3 mm 176.61 176.00 176.82

4 mm 177.04 176.26 176.35

Average Length , ⊘ mm 176.803 176.213 176.450

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 17.417 x10-6 16.256x10-6 18.709x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 23.11 23.11 23.11

T1 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

T2 °C 10.28 10.28 10.28

T3 °C 50.14 50.14 50.14

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 27.03 27.03 27.03

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.86 -39.86 -39.86

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.86 39.86 39.86

Length measured, L0 mm 0.1050 0.1455 0.1006

L1 mm 0.0816 0.1280 0.0739

L2 mm 0.1118 0.1506 0.1118

L3 mm 0.0817 0.1278 0.0733

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0235 -0.0175 -0.0267

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0302 0.0226 0.0379

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0301 -0.0227 -0.0386

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0832 0.0774 0.0892

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1228 -0.1142 -0.1316

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1227 0.1142 0.1316

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0598 0.0599 0.0625

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0925 -0.0916 -0.0936

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0927 0.0914 0.0930

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 12.51 x10-6 12.58 x10-6 13.11 x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 13.13 x10-6 13.04 x10-6 13.31 x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 13.15 x10-6 13.02 x10-6 13.23 x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 13.14 x10-6 13.03 x10-6 13.27 x10-6

CTEavg in/in/°F 7.30 x10-6 7.24 x10-6 7.37 x10-6

A - 33

Table A - 32: Properties of CTE specimen set MX-B. CTE Set MXB tested at 28-days of age

Specimen ID unit MXB-1 MXB-2 MXB-3

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 130.58 129.81 130.23

g/cc 2.092 2.079 2.086

WSSD g 2988 2970.1 2986.8

WSUB g 1563.1 1545.3 1558.6

Volume, V cc 1428.47 1428.37 1431.78

Length, 1 mm 176.06 176.10 176.26

2 mm 176.00 176.37 176.16

3 mm 176.42 175.87 177.09

4 mm 175.98 175.95 176.53

Average Length , ⊘ mm 176.115 176.073 176.510

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 17.417 x10-6 16.256x10-6 18.709x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 20.96 20.96 20.96

T1 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

T2 °C 10.28 10.28 10.28

T3 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 29.19 29.19 29.19

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.87 -39.87 -39.87

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.87 39.87 39.87

Length measured, L0 mm 0.1043 0.1436 0.1025

L1 mm 0.0740 0.1193 0.0681

L2 mm 0.1134 0.1500 0.1166

L3 mm 0.0739 0.1194 0.0680

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0303 -0.0243 -0.0344

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0394 0.0307 0.0485

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0394 -0.0307 -0.0486

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0895 0.0835 0.0964

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1223 -0.1141 -0.1317

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1223 0.1141 0.1317

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0592 0.0592 0.0620

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0829 -0.0834 -0.0832

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0829 0.0835 0.0830

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 11.52 x10-6 11.53 x10-6 12.04 x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 11.81 x10-6 11.88 x10-6 11.82 x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 11.80 x10-6 11.89 x10-6 11.80 x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 11.81 x10-6 11.88 x10-6 11.81 x10-6

CTEavg in/in/°F 6.56 x10-6 6.60 x10-6 6.56 x10-6

A - 34

Table A - 33: Properties of CTE specimen set KC100. Specimen ID unit KC100-1 KC100-2 KC100-3

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 164.86 164.32 163.66

g/cc 2.641 2.632 2.622

WSSD g 3696.9 3711.9 3678.2

WSUB g 2300.5 2305.2 2278.7

Volume, V cc 1399.90 1410.23 1403.01

Length, 1 mm 178.58 176.73 175.25

2 mm 176.58 176.94 176.43

3 mm 176.01 176.92 175.69

4 mm 177.12 177.66 175.21

Average Length , ⊘ mm 177.073 177.063 175.645

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 16.109x10-6 15.102x10-6 18.680x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 23.15 23.15 23.15

T1 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

T2 °C 10.29 10.29 10.29

T3 °C 50.14 50.14 50.14

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 27.00 27.00 27.00

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.86 -39.86 -39.86

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.85 39.85 39.85

Length measured, L0 mm 0.0977 0.1436 0.0965

L1 mm 0.0450 0.1030 0.0394

L2 mm 0.1176 0.1598 0.1243

L3 mm 0.0446 0.1028 0.0391

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0527 -0.0406 -0.0571

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0726 0.0568 0.0849

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0731 -0.0569 -0.0851

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0770 0.0722 0.0886

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1137 -0.1066 -0.1308

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1137 0.1066 0.1307

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0243 0.0316 0.0315

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0411 -0.0498 -0.0459

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0406 0.0496 0.0456

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 5.09 x10-6 6.62 x10-6 6.64 x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 5.82 x10-6 7.06 x10-6 6.55 x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 5.75 x10-6 7.03 x10-6 6.52 x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 5.79 x10-6 7.04 x10-6 6.53 x10-6

CTEavg in/in/°F 3.22 x10-6 3.91 x10-6 3.63 x10-6

A - 35

Table A - 34: Properties of CTE specimen set BB100. Specimen ID unit BB100-1 BB100-2 BB100-3

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 170.08 169.70 178.64

g/cc 2.724 2.718 2.862

WSSD g 3894.8 3890.7 4100.3

WSUB g 2468.8 2463 2671

Volume, V cc 1429.57 1431.28 1432.88

Length, 1 mm 176.41 176.57 177.68

2 mm 176.21 175.72 176.82

3 mm 176.93 176.32 176.32

4 mm 176.70 177.79 176.45

Average Length , ⊘ mm 176.563 176.600 176.818

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 16.109x10-6 15.102x10-6 18.680x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 23.44 23.44 23.44

T1 °C 50.16 50.16 50.16

T2 °C 10.32 10.32 10.32

T3 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

T4 °C 10.31 10.31 10.31

T5 °C 50.16 50.16 50.16

T6 °C 10.30 10.30 10.30

T7 °C 50.16 50.16 50.16

T8 °C 10.36 10.36 10.36

T9 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

T10 °C 10.35 10.35 10.35

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 26.72 26.72 26.72

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.84 -39.84 -39.84

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.83 39.83 39.83

ΔT3=T4-T3 °C -39.84 -39.84 -39.84

ΔT4=T5-T4 °C 39.85 39.85 39.85

ΔT5=T6-T5 °C -39.86 -39.86 -39.86

ΔT6=T7-T6 °C 39.85 39.85 39.85

ΔT7=T8-T7 °C -39.80 -39.80 -39.80

ΔT8=T9-T8 °C 39.80 39.80 39.80

ΔT9=T10-T9 °C -39.80 -39.80 -39.80

Length measured, L0 mm 0.0997 0.1430 0.0956

L1 mm 0.0421 0.1116 0.0652

L2 mm 0.1289 0.1823 0.1393

L3 mm 0.0425 0.1230 0.0753

L4 mm 0.1291 0.1903 0.1460

A - 36

Table A - 34 continued...

L5 mm 0.0423 0.1282 0.0796

L6 mm 0.1290 0.1945 0.1496

L7 mm 0.0419 0.1314 0.0823

L8 mm 0.1286 0.1974 0.1519

L9 mm 0.0416 0.1337 0.0843

L10 mm 0.1285 0.1995 0.1539

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0576 -0.0314 -0.0304

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0868 0.0707 0.0741

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0864 -0.0593 -0.0640

ΔLm3=L4-L3 mm 0.0866 0.0673 0.0707

ΔLm4=L5-L4 mm -0.0868 -0.0621 -0.0664

ΔLm5=L6-L5 mm 0.0867 0.0663 0.0699

ΔLm6=L7-L6 mm -0.0871 -0.0632 -0.0673

ΔLm7=L8-L7 mm 0.0867 0.0661 0.0697

ΔLm8=L9-L8 mm -0.0870 -0.0638 -0.0677

ΔLm9=L10-L9 mm 0.0869 0.0659 0.0696

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0822 0.0767 0.0884

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1225 -0.1144 -0.1318

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1225 0.1144 0.1318

ΔLf3=Cf* ⊘*ΔT3 mm -0.1225 -0.1144 -0.1318

ΔLf4=Cf* ⊘*ΔT4 mm 0.1225 0.1144 0.1318

ΔLf5=Cf* ⊘*ΔT5 mm -0.1226 -0.1144 -0.1319

ΔLf6=Cf* ⊘*ΔT6 mm 0.1226 0.1144 0.1318

ΔLf7=Cf* ⊘*ΔT7 mm -0.1224 -0.1143 -0.1317

ΔLf8=Cf* ⊘*ΔT8 mm 0.1224 0.1142 0.1317

ΔLf9=Cf* ⊘*ΔT9 mm -0.1224 -0.1143 -0.1317

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0246 0.0453 0.0580

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0357 -0.0436 -0.0577

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0361 0.0550 0.0678

ΔLa3=ΔLm3+ΔLf3 mm -0.0359 -0.0470 -0.0611

ΔLa4=ΔLm4+ΔLf4 mm 0.0357 0.0523 0.0654

ΔLa5=ΔLm5+ΔLf5 mm -0.0359 -0.0481 -0.0619

ΔLa6=ΔLm6+ΔLf6 mm 0.0354 0.0513 0.0645

ΔLa7=ΔLm7+ΔLf7 mm -0.0357 -0.0482 -0.0620

ΔLa8=ΔLm8+ΔLf8 mm 0.0354 0.0505 0.0640

ΔLa9=ΔLm9+ΔLf9 mm -0.0355 -0.0484 -0.0621

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 5.21x10-6 9.59x10-6 12.28 x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 5.08x10-6 6.20x10-6 8.19 x10-6

A - 37

Table A - 34 continued...

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 5.13x10-6 7.82x10-6 9.63 x10-6

CTE3=ΔLa3/L0/ΔT3 mm/mm/°C 5.10x10-6 6.69x10-6 8.67 x10-6

CTE4=ΔLa4/L0/ΔT4 mm/mm/°C 5.08x10-6 7.43x10-6 9.29 x10-6

CTE5=ΔLa5/L0/ΔT5 mm/mm/°C 5.10x10-6 6.83x10-6 8.79 x10-6

CTE6=ΔLa6/L0/ΔT6 mm/mm/°C 5.04x10-6 7.28x10-6 9.16 x10-6

CTE7=ΔLa7/L0/ΔT7 mm/mm/°C 5.07x10-6 6.86x10-6 8.81 x10-6

CTE8=ΔLa8/L0/ΔT8 mm/mm/°C 5.03x10-6 7.18x10-6 9.10 x10-6

CTE9=ΔLa9/L0/ΔT9 mm/mm/°C 5.05x10-6 6.89x10-6 8.82 x10-6

CTEavg8,9 mm/mm/°C 5.04x10-6 7.04x10-6 8.96 x10-6

CTEavg in/in/°F 2.80x10-6 3.91x10-6 4.98 x10-6

A - 38

Table A - 35: Properties of concrete cores taken from slab number 1 along SC-80. SC 80, Slab 1, specimens 1-1, 1-2, 1-3

Specimen ID unit 1-1 1-2 1-3

Core depth in. 10” 9-3/4” 9-3/4”

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 151.77 150.56 153.95

g/cc 2.431 2.412 2.466

WSSD g 3443.1 3433.6 3510.3

WSUB g 2030.4 2013.5 2090.4

Volume, V cc 1416.24 1423.66 1423.46

Length, 1 mm 177.40 178.41 178.46

2 mm 177.01 177.89 178.35

3 mm 177.27 178.01 177.56

4 mm 177.89 178.06 177.98

Average Length , ⊘ mm 177.393 178.093 178.088

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 17.417 x10-6 16.256x10-6 18.709x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 22.62 22.62 22.62

T1 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

T2 °C 10.31 10.31 10.31

T3 °C 50.14 50.14 50.14

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 27.53 27.53 27.53

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.84 -39.84 -39.84

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.83 39.83 39.83

Length measured, L0 mm 0.1023 0.1424 0.1012

L1 mm 0.0608 0.1071 0.0601

L2 mm 0.1250 0.1602 0.1299

L3 mm 0.0626 0.1086 0.0617

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0415 -0.0352 -0.0411

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0642 0.0531 0.0699

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0624 -0.0516 -0.0683

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0851 0.0797 0.0917

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1231 -0.1153 -0.1327

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1231 0.1153 0.1327

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0435 0.0445 0.0506

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0589 -0.0622 -0.0629

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0607 0.0637 0.0644

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 8.92x10-6 9.07x10-6 10.32x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 8.33x10-6 8.77x10-6 8.86x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 8.59x10-6 8.98x10-6 9.09x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 8.46x10-6 8.87x10-6 8.97x10-6

A - 39

Table A - 35 continued...

CTEavg in/in/°F 4.70x10-6 4.93x10-6 4.98x10-6

Compressive Strength psi. 4,689 6,351 7,268

A - 40

Table A - 36: Properties of concrete cores taken from slab number 2 along SC-80. SC 80, Slab 2, specimens 2-1, 2-2, 2-3

Specimen ID unit 2-1 2-2 2-3

Core depth in. 10-3/4” 10-1/4” 10”

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 148.12 148.29 149.54

g/cc 2.373 2.375 2.395

WSSD g 3375.9 3373.9 3406.8

WSUB g 1956.6 1957.1 1988.1

Volume, V cc 1422.86 1420.35 1422.26

Length, 1 mm 178.00 178.09 177.94

2 mm 177.97 178.37 178.77

3 mm 178.50 178.22 178.58

4 mm 178.40 177.96 177.88

Average Length , ⊘ mm 178.218 178.160 178.293

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 17.417 x10-6 16.256x10-6 18.709x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 23.25 23.25 23.25

T1 °C 50.15 50.15 50.15

T2 °C 10.32 10.32 10.32

T3 °C 50.14 50.14 50.14

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 26.90 26.90 26.90

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.83 -39.83 -39.83

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.82 39.82 39.82

Length measured, L0 mm 0.1050 0.1424 0.1020

L1 mm 0.0669 0.1085 0.0624

L2 mm 0.1244 0.1579 0.1290

L3 mm 0.0673 0.1088 0.0631

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0381 -0.0339 -0.0396

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0575 0.0494 0.0666

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0571 -0.0491 -0.0659

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0835 0.0779 0.0897

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1236 -0.1154 -0.1329

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1236 0.1153 0.1328

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0454 0.0440 0.0501

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0661 -0.0660 -0.0663

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0665 0.0662 0.0669

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 9.47x10-6 9.18x10-6 10.46x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 9.31x10-6 9.30x10-6 9.33x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 9.38x10-6 9.34x10-6 9.43x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 9.34x10-6 9.32x10-6 9.38x10-6

A - 41

Table A - 36 continued…

CTEavg in/in/°F 5.19x10-6 5.18x10-6 5.21x10-6

Compressive Strength psi. 6,883 4,976 5,213

A - 42

Table A - 37: Properties of concrete cores taken from slab number 3 along SC-80. SC 80, Slab 3, specimens 3-1, 3-2, 3-3

Specimen ID unit 3-1 3-2 3-3

Core depth in. 9-3/4” 9-3/4” 9-3/4”

Unit Weight lbs/ft3 147.91 148.68 149.34

g/cc 2.369 2.382 2.392

WSSD g 3375.0 3391.8 3412.3

WSUB g 1954.1 1971.2 1989.4

Volume, V cc 1424.46 1424.16 1426.47

Length, 1 mm 178.13 178.35 177.66

2 mm 178.78 178.31 178.22

3 mm 178.74 178.91 178.90

4 mm 178.27 178.23 178.94

Average Length , ⊘ mm 178.480 178.450 178.430

Frame Correction, Cf mm/mm/°C 17.417 x10-6 16.256x10-6 18.709x10-6

Temperature, T0 °C 23.93 23.93 23.93

T1 °C 50.13 50.13 50.13

T2 °C 10.36 10.36 10.36

T3 °C 50.13 50.13 50.13

ΔT0=T1-T0 °C 26.20 26.20 26.20

ΔT1=T2-T1 °C -39.77 -39.77 -39.77

ΔT2=T3-T2 °C 39.77 39.77 39.77

Length measured, L0 mm 0.1072 0.1477 0.0931

L1 mm 0.0694 0.1146 0.0541

L2 mm 0.1288 0.1658 0.1214

L3 mm 0.0702 0.1152 0.0547

ΔLm0=L1-L0 mm -0.0378 -0.0331 -0.0390

ΔLm1=L2-L1 mm 0.0594 0.0512 0.0674

ΔLm2=L3-L2 mm -0.0585 -0.0506 -0.0668

ΔLf0=Cf* ⊘*ΔT0 mm 0.0815 0.0760 0.0875

ΔLf1=Cf* ⊘*ΔT1 mm -0.1236 -0.1154 -0.1328

ΔLf2=Cf* ⊘*ΔT2 mm 0.1236 0.1154 0.1328

ΔLa0=ΔLm0+ΔLf0 mm 0.0436 0.0429 0.0484

ΔLa1=ΔLm1+ΔLf1 mm -0.0643 -0.0641 -0.0654

ΔLa2=ΔLm2+ΔLf2 mm 0.0651 0.0648 0.0660

CTE0=ΔLa0/L0/ΔT0 mm/mm/°C 9.33x10-6 9.17x10-6 10.36x10-6

CTE1=ΔLa1/L0/ΔT1 mm/mm/°C 9.05x10-6 9.04x10-6 9.22x10-6

CTE2=ΔLa2/L0/ΔT2 mm/mm/°C 9.17x10-6 9.12x10-6 9.30x10-6

CTEavg1,2 mm/mm/°C 9.11x10-6 9.08x10-6 9.26x10-6

A - 43

Table A - 37 continued…

CTEavg in/in/°F 5.06x10-6 5.05x10-6 5.14x10-6

Compressive Strength psi. 5,334 5,177 5,428

A - 44

Table A - 38: Coefficient of thermal expansion of 28-day specimens using Tex-428-A Method Specimen ID CTE

x10-6 mm/mm/°C x10-6 in/in/°F MX1-28-1 8.547 4.748 MX1-28-2 8.610 4.784 MX1-28-3 8.743 4.857

MX2-28-1 9.422 5.234 MX2-28-2 9.446 5.248 MX2-28-3 9.321 5.178

MX3-28-1 8.889 4.938 MX3-28-2 8.889 4.939 MX3-28-3 8.772 4.873

MX4-28-1 8.494 4.719 MX4-28-2 8.800 4.889 MX4-28-3 8.637 4.799

MX5B-28-1 9.358 5.199 MX5B-28-2 9.381 5.211 MX5B-28-3 9.218 5.121

MX6-28-1 10.082 5.601 MX6-28-2 10.030 5.572 MX6-28-3 9.065 5.036

MXA-1 11.761 6.534 MXA-2 11.716 6.509 MXA-3 11.625 6.458

MXB-1 11.739 6.522 MXB-2 11.713 6.507 MXB-3 11.344 6.302

A - 45

Table A - 39: Coefficient of thermal expansion of 90-day specimens using Tex-428-A Method Specimen ID CTE

x10-6 mm/mm/°C x10-6 in/in/°F MX1-90-1 8.777 4.876 MX1-90-2 8.805 4.892 MX1-90-3 8.573 4.763

MX2-90-1 9.898 5.499 MX2-90-2 9.944 5.524 MX2-90-3 9.747 5.415

MX3-90-1 8.757 4.865 MX3-90-2 8.790 4.883 MX3-90-3 8.919 4.955

MX4-90-1 9.533 5.296 MX4-90-2 9.461 5.256 MX4-90-3 9.120 5.066

MX5B-90-1 10.083 5.601 MX5B-90-2 10.035 5.575 MX5B-90-3 9.628 5.349

MX6-90-1 9.585 5.325 MX6-90-2 9.528 5.293 MX6-90-3 9.720 5.400